LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Author: Safety considered at all times in extrication

Iam responding to Jonathan Riffe’s Letter to the Editor published in the February 2008 issue in which he criticized our operations at a serious motor vehicle accident on December 23, 2006 (“Challenging and Difficult Auto Extrication,” Volunteers Corner, November 2007). I totally agree with his concerns about downed wires. However, the incident in question involved a broken utility pole with intact overhead wires, which at no time were down or in danger of falling.

Our high-sensitivity voltage detector scan of the scene was done strictly as a precaution. Had wires been down, we would have waited for the utility company to arrive and declare the scene safe before commencing our operations. Our operations at this incident were conducted with careful and complete consideration for firefighter and patient safety at all times and were not dangerous or unsafe in any way.

Sydney Henry Jr.
Assistant Chief
Elmsford (NY) Fire Department

Preventing fires is primary responsibility

Regarding the Roundtable in the January 2008 issue, a couple of comments concern me. The first is the insurance premiums doubling for installing residential sprinklers; the second is the response to residential alarm responses. Most insurance companies we surveyed offer up to a 30 percent discount for residential sprinklers. When they are monitored by a fire detection system, the increase can be more. Most fire deaths occur in the home. We are losing about 2,600 of our taxpayers annually. The fires and alarms in the residential occupancies, though trying at times, are the ones we should focus on the most and spend the time to educate the occupants. As a fire service, we have the responsibility to promote residential fire sprinklers. In fact, promoting fire sprinklers is initiative 15 of the National Fallen Firefighters “Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives.” The primary responsibility of the U.S. fire service is to prevent fires in the first place.

Tim Frankenberg
Captain
Washington (MO) Fire Department
Fire Product Manager
Potter Electric Signal Company

Coworkers add to firefighter’s well-being

In “The Big Picture” (Fire Commentary, December 2007), Sam Giamo Jr. makes the point of how important a sense of well-being is to anyone in the fire service. I recently retired from a career fire department. I would like to add one component for achieving a sense of well-being in the fire service—working with competent and dedicated coworkers.

I was lucky in my career as a firefighter. I worked for some top-notch officers who instilled confidence in me. As an officer, I always had a crew that would “do the right thing” (they certainly made me look smart). A sense of company well-being was always present.

They say, “Time flies when you’re having fun.” That really didn’t hit me until my engine company pulled away from the last run of my career (a pot on the stove). The on-duty deputy chief wished me well (for all to hear) over the radio. It’s classy and dedicated coworkers like that who keep a sense of well-being the top priority.

Competent coworkers, continued training, dedication to service, and overall enjoyment of the fire service make this the best vocation anyone could ever have. To anyone starting out, enjoy the ride. A sense of well-being will keep you safe.

Chuck DeLuca
Lieutenant (Retired)
Hackensack (NJ) Fire Department

Fire scene safety and covers

I am a retired battalion chief with more than 30 years of experience. My history includes 20 years as an engine company captain in Monterey, California, and four years as a battalion chief with the Milpitas (CA) Fire Department. The December 2007 cover photo is interesting. It has always been my feeling that we in the fire service don’t need to invent new ways to injure or kill ourselves, because we just keep making the same old mistakes.

The cover shows two firefighters who appear to be without SCBA; one firefighter is in the doorway, and the other is footing the ladder. Also, the aerial ladder seems to be in contact with direct flame and in very close proximity to wires. These are the types of basic mistakes still being made that should never occur. No firefighter should ever be in the area of a structure fire without full protective equipment, including an SCBA strapped to his back with the face piece assembly immediately available. Perhaps Fire Engineering should run a series of articles on the basics of fire scene safety.

Demetrius A. Kastros
Monterey, California

Nate DeMarse, Fire Engineering photo editor, responds: I agree with many of the points Kastros makes. I select the Fire Engineering cover photos with the objective that someone will assemble the crew and toss the magazine on the kitchen table to stir a tactical discussion. As with any fire scene photo—and as Former Editor Tom Brennan used to say—“A fire photo is a fragment of a second in time.”  It is important to keep in mind that there is no way to tell what went on before the camera shutter opened and after it closed.

Following are a few of the reasons for my selecting this photo and my thought processes for selecting cover photos:

1. This fire building is a very common building type to which almost every fire department in the United States responds. 
2. The proper position, stance, and personal protective equipment of the member performing horizontal ventilation on the front porch roof. Additionally, the color, texture, and volume of smoke issuing from the same window could make for a great discussion on reading smoke. In this case, several minutes could be spent on the importance of coordinating horizontal ventilation with the engine company’s advance up the stairs. Vent-enter-search (VES) can also be discussed if members put themselves in the place of the member operating on the front porch roof and department standard operating procedures do not contradict VES practices.
3. There is a vertical ventilation opening in the roof that is venting fire. This can create a great discussion for peaked-roof operations and the benefits or drawbacks of vertical ventilation on this type of building.
4. Some of the basic size-up discussion points could include the following: the presence of overhead wires in front of the building, as the writer states. There are also two or three electrical meters on the A/B (1/2) corner, indicating multiple occupancies. There is a smoke condition emanating from the eaves and the front attic window, indicating that the fire is present on the top floor. There is a change in grade on the B (2) side, and the presence of the doorway indicates a walk-out basement. Finally, I noticed the proximity of exposure D (4), which can be used to discuss possible exposure problems and what can be done if fire enters the exposure.
5. Portable ladder sizes will have to be carefully selected and evaluated if taking them to the B or C (2 or 3) side because of the change in grade—for example, a 24-foot extension ladder may not get you to the peak of the roof in the rear.

There are probably a few points that I am missing that others can point out, which is exactly why this is a great photo for discussion. 

I agree that in many cases the fire service does not learn from some of the mistakes we have made in the past. However, I don’t feel that the members operating on the exterior of the building in this photo are operating inappropriately. Kastros says the member on the front porch (near the front door) and the member butting the ladder should be wearing SCBA. In my opinion, a member butting a ladder or operating on the exterior of a building is not operating in an immediately dangerous to life or health atmosphere, and it is up to that individual if he wants to wear an SCBA and a face piece. Many departments allow members to perform supporting tasks such as the tasks shown in the photo without an SCBA.