More discussion on nozzles
For the past few years, a debate concerning fog vs. solid bore nozzles has been ongoing. Each side has been trying to prove its point that the nozzle it favors is better than the other. In my humble opinion, neither position is entirely correct. What must be kept in mind is that these nozzles are tools and that each has its place and value. After 38 years of experience in six departments, career and volunteer, I have found both are valuable depending on the situation. The fire service has always seemed to have trouble using the appropriate tool for the job at hand. We must match the tool to the job if we are to achieve quality and craftsmanship.
Maybe the problem is that we listen too much to marketplace hype. We may have been told by a sales representative that “this new (fill in the blank) is going to solve all your problems,” or we may have watched a demonstration not related to the types of fires we generally fight and were impressed by the fact that a specific nozzle worked well on the pile of lumber placed in a corner of some burn building. Then there is the perpetuation problem: “This was the type of nozzle in use when I started. It’s all I’ve ever known. I don’t feel comfortable changing.” It could also be the opposite: If the guys next town over use it, it must be good. There are many more examples, but you get the drift.
Something very important is being overlooked in the nozzle debate. If you do not deliver the appropriate amount of water the fire is telling you it needs to be controlled, if the water is not effectively applied, and if you don’t consider the type of fire at hand, it doesn’t matter which type of nozzle you are using. If you do not continue your education, make sound tactical decisions, and use a variety of options, it doesn’t matter which type of nozzle you use. Safe, successful firefighting depends on the coming together of many factors, not the least of which is using the right tool. Many departments scrapped the booster line not because it was evil but because some insisted on using it for the wrong purpose. So, did we correct the problem? No, we simply took it off the truck: “By George, if they don’t have it, they can’t mess up.”
Sometimes a straight bore nozzle is the best choice, and sometimes the fog nozzle is better. I want both types available. That way, I can pick the best tool for what is presented. Sometimes, the situation dictates that both types be used at the same fire. It depends on the variables. With education and years of experience, I would like to think that I can make the best decision. Match the right tool to the job, and the results will be rewarding.
Rick Bolly
Lieutenant
Marion County Fire-Rescue
Ocala, Florida
In the recent debate concerning fog vs. straight-stream nozzles in the pages of Fire Engineering, the discussion has gone solely along the lines of “My experience tells me this; therefore, this is the truth” and “My experience tells me the opposite; therefore, the opposite is true.” Close to 50 years ago, when Keith Royer wanted to know about fog methods, he did research. The notion that this question should be answered with the help of newly organized research seems to have escaped all parties.
This is not surprising (but it is sad) in view of the current status of fire service education in the United States. Education has two components: research and training. Without research, training can only perpetuate old doctrines and cannot respond to changing conditions. Yet, in the United States, training is done very comprehensively, but research is nearly absent. One might ask why Great Britain long has had a highly successful program of research on fire service topics that we seem not to be able to afford here. Even more embarrassing, Sweden, with a population 1/30th that of the United States, has done much more research on firefighting topics in recent years than the United States.
It’s great that the fire service is petitioning Congress for hardware money, but it would find it even more valuable if it were to petition Congress to set up some research programs to benefit its profession.
Vytenis Babrauskas, Ph.D.
President
Fire Science and Technology Inc.
Issaquah, Washington
Bill Manning responds: Where has the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), with whom Mr. Babrauskas is well-acquainted, been for the past 20 years? NIST has been conducting plenty of research for industry but very little of it for practical application to the fire service, even though the federal government requires it to do so. The fire service hungers for scientific, quantifiable data in many areas. NASA, the U.S. military, and private industry have partially filled this void. The Center for Fire Research, which was established specifically for this purpose, is not even a miniscule blip on the fire service radar screen. What little we’ve gotten from NIST generally has been either Ph.D.-level studies of smoke plume trajectory from in-situ burning of crude oil in Alaska or a banal “Feel-a-Door-To-See-If-It’s-Hot” study.
There will always be a need for volunteer fire services
Carl F. Welser’s article “The Middletown Mistake: Spotting It and Avoiding It” (Fire Engineering, June 2000) was quite thought-provoking. What he so ably described is, in reality, nothing more than an economic entity (Middletown) responding to the marketplace. As such, Middletown is subject to two of the most important elements of any economy: demand and supply.
When Middletown was small and uncomplicated, the demands made on the volunteer fire service were probably quite straightforward, and the supply (in the form of available personnel) was probably readily available. As Middletown grew, the demands changed (e.g., hazardous materials runs, confined space incidents, and the ubiquitous emergency medical responses). The supply of personnel, however, was not expanding. In fact, the personnel pool was receding for a number of reasons. The proficiencies needed to meet the new demands required an increase in skills and training. The amount of time required for advanced training consumes the time available for responding to incidents. The individuals in the personnel pool have to make rational economic decisions: “Can I devote more time for training and responses, or should I look for another way of serving my community while also looking for a new job, pay increase, and so on?”
For Middletown to retain a dependable and consistent supply of personnel, it is forced to think less of the volunteer force and more of a paid, career force. Middletown has now grown into Bigtown and must be able to meet all the demands made on a larger municipality. The residents of Middletown now demand the services of a Bigtown and are willing to pay the taxes to ensure that such services are available. Those who were once in the volunteer service now have an opportunity to apply for a career position. The community now has a career staff, and with this comes the time to train and respond in a predictable fashion. And with a paid department comes the ability to issue sanctions for those who do not follow the department’s rules and regulations. (This application of sanctions in a volunteer service can be somewhat problematic. Certainly, one may apply such sanctions, but inevitably the sanctions will include suspension of service. In a volunteer force where personnel is already a critical issue, such suspensions only aggravate an already volatile situation.)
As Middletown slowly evolves to Bigtown, another phenomenon occurs. The tax rate increase discourages the young families who grew up in Middletown from purchasing housing there. These families are forced to move to a smaller community-Smalltown. Once in these smaller, less expensive communities, these new families decide to start a volunteer fire department. This department has small demands, and the supply of personnel is high; thus, the cycle continues.
I believe that Welser’s concerns for Middletown are genuine. I trust that he will take to heart the certainty that for every Middletown there is a larger number of Smalltowns always needing the services of volunteer firefighters.
Patrick T. Reynolds
Assistant Professor
OMI College of Applied Science
Open Learning Fire Service Program
University of Cincinnati (Ohio)
Lieutenant (Ret.)
Fire Department of New York
The “Final Frontier” is here today
I thoroughly enjoyed “The Final Frontier” by Glenn P. Corbett (Fire Commentary, Fire Engineering, March 2000). He is on the right track, although we both know chiefs won’t suggest that they report to the fire marshal anytime soon!
I don’t think we have to wait for the “Final Frontier.” It exists today-in the United States, in progressive manufacturing business and industry fire departments. Oftentimes, the fire suppression forces report to a fire protection supervisor, a fire protection engineer, or a safety supervisor. The emphasis is on prevention. Often, when the fire service thinks of business and industry, it thinks of spectacular large loss events, but the truth is good companies have few fires. They have exemplary performance, since they focus on prevention. It is good business and consistent with their overall dedication to safety.
I manage the Intel Corporation’s Northwest Environmental Health & Safety Department (which includes fire protection engineers), the largest of six global regions. I chair a steering team that includes all regional and corporate leadership and have access to companywide performance. Intel, worldwide, has more than 70,000 employees, equivalent to the population of many cities; net revenues were about $30 billion in 1999. Manufacturing continues 24 hours a day, involves hazardous materials, and is conducted in seven U.S. states and eight countries.
Since assuming my present position four and one-half years ago, I have received reports on fires worldwide. The “biggest” was a construction office trailer fire; the most common type (two or three a year) involved smoldering bark dust from discarded smoking materials; the most worrisome type from the perspective of productivity interruption was the fire caused by the overheating of electrical equipment missed by infrared detectors; and the most costly was a smoky trash can that contaminated some product in a “clean room” in which we manufacture computer processors.
The frequency of fires is extremely low. Losses are so low that they are “below the radar screen.” Weeks go by without a fire anywhere in the world. Intel’s overall commitment to safety includes fire prevention. In 1999, the Intel OSHA recordable injury rate (injuries or illness per 100 workers per year, medical treatment, restricted and lost day cases) was 0.26, far below industry average. Every incident is thoroughly investigated, root causes are determined, accountability is assigned, and preventive measures are implemented at all sites worldwide. We are pleased with our improved performance but will not be satisfied until we eliminate all injuries, illnesses, and fires.
Many other companies have similar experiences because of their dedication to prevention: They organize and prepare for suppression, but prevention is Job #1.
I suggest these examples as models for “The Final Frontier”; they could be incorporated into the fire service’s teachings. The fire service can learn from the best that business and industry have to offer. Certainly, fires are preventable and many of their causes are predictable, as the article suggests. I suggest the “issues” Corbett cites, “apathy toward fire and the fire department’s lack of interest in preventing fires,” have been addressed in the manufacturing environment. The CEO is the chief safety (prevention) officer in good companies. Prevention is stressed throughout the organization, and careers can be positively or negatively impacted by performance. Communications initiatives, engineering approaches, and positive reinforcers are common to the public and private sectors. Certainly, motivators would be different in a public application, as Corbett highlights (laws, penalties, public humiliation).
One model for changing society’s safety behavior the fire service can copy is that of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In a generation, this group has accomplished much. Our laws are stronger, penalties are stiffer, the attitude toward drinking and driving has changed (public humiliation), and the rate of drinking/driving fatalities and injuries is down significantly. The model works. What can we all learn from MADD?
I suggest fire departments seek out and learn more, tap into what works, and have the courage to apply these lessons faster than we are doing today. A local combination department chief I know often meets with business and community leaders to learn of new approaches for leading his department. He invites people from outside the fire service to critique operations and programs as he and his department learn new ways of delivering services. The approach is refreshing and has yielded significant benefits. The department isn’t to the “Final Frontier” yet, but it is leading the way. It can be done. I encourage Corbett to continue to be an advocacy for change.
Jim Wick
Portland, Oregon
