Disappointed in reaction to NFPA 1710
I have been in the fire service for 15 years, as a volunteer and a career member. The paid department I work for has 10 stations that house 10 engine companies, two truck companies, and four paramedic ambulances. All engine and truck companies run with an officer, an engineer, and a firefighter; our medic units are staffed with two firefighter/paramedics. Our run card file for residential fires consists of one district chief (DC), two engine companies, one truck company, and one medic unit. Response to commercial fires consists of two DCs, three engines, two trucks, and one medic. High-rise (four stories or greater) fires get two DCs, four engines, two trucks, and two medic units.
When I first heard of the proposed NFPA 1710, I thought this was just the break my department and many other departments need to justify to mayors and city managers the increasing of staffing levels. I am disappointed in some fire department leaders’ responses to this standard, including some in my department. It is very hard for me to understand why anyone in the fire service would not support this proposal 100 percent. It is very important to get the message out to the public explaining how limited we are with staffing levels at three or fewer.
Residents calling for an ambulance and having an ambulance and an ALS engine or a truck company respond often ask why this is so. Once we explain the need for extra help on serious calls or that the fire apparatus was much closer than the ambulance and contains a paramedic, it is amazing at the positive responses we receive.
It is important that we convey this same message with regard to fire response. Very few citizens understand how jobs are broken down on the fireground; some fire department leaders must not know either if they don’t support 1710.
I can’t believe some of the reasons given for not supporting this proposal. I have heard everything from “We don’t have enough fires to justify it” to “It would cost too much.” I would like to hear that same rationale be given after the death of a firefighter or when trying to explain to a family why we couldn’t rescue a family member trapped inside their burning house because of staffing levels.
I may not know all there is to about NFPA 1710, but I do know that when I am working on the truck company on the fireground and can’t perform the needed tasks the truck must perform in a timely fashion because of limited staffing, it is very frustrating and very dangerous. Amen to supporters of NFPA 1710. We should be thankful that some people still believe in looking out for the firefighters of the American fire service.
Mike Montgomery
Engineer/Paramedic
Eugene (OR) Fire Department
More than basics needed for survival
This letter is in response to John J. Gelinas’ letter (Letters to the Editor, January 2001) in which he tried to belittle the importance of the headfirst ladder slide.
I would like to give a very valid and important reason for this technique: SURVIVAL! Gelinas seems to be under the assumption that “basic fire skills” are the answer to any and all emergency situations that may arise while performing an interior attack on a burning structure. Does fire, our enemy, really care if we have basic fire skills when it flashes over or weakens structural members and causes a collapse that blocks our primary path of egress? That is the time a firefighter should know he has other alternatives for survival besides the basic fire skills. These basic skills Gelinas speaks so highly of cannot cover every situation, just as the headfirst ladder slide cannot cover every situation. It can be a valuable technique if a firefighter gets trapped in a second- or third-story compartment and there are signs that flashover is imminent or his SCBA fails.
When fire crews are working in a multistory occupancy, outside crews should throw ladders to as many windows as possible. One of the primary objectives for doing this is firefighter safety and rescue. The ladder, according to the IFSTA Essentials Manual, should be raised to the sill of the window to give the victim (firefighter) easier access to it. The locations of the ladders should be transmitted over the radio to the interior crews or sectors. The ladder should be set at the proper climbing angle if at all possible, as described in the IFSTA Manual-all basic skills.
At this point, if there is a ladder in the vicinity of trapped firefighters, they can use it to quickly evacuate a room. I personally would rather risk a shard of glass, a broken arm, or even paralysis than burn to death. I have not only safely trained and practiced the ladder-slide technique but also the use of a personal safety rope to evacuate an upper-story room using such things as a halligan, my air pack, and even a rolled-up magazine as anchor points on the window casing. I am very glad to know these techniques as alternatives to my basic fire skills just in case the basics won’t work in a situation.
Gelinas also states in his letter that fire departments send firefighters who have not sufficiently been trained in basic fire skills into burning buildings. What about the firefighters or officers with 25 or 30 years on the job who get killed in burning buildings? Does anyone really think they didn’t know the basic fire skills? Something went wrong; something unexpected happened. Remember, there is no such thing as a routine fire. Not training firefighters in alternate means of egress will also kill firefighters. Making them believe that if they do everything by the book they will go home safely is a fallacy. We as firefighters need to be as prepared as possible for anything, routine or not.
The headfirst ladder slide and the “no air maneuver” (Training Notebook, “SCBA Training: The ‘No-Air Maneuver,'” John G. Riker, January 2001) are potential life-saving techniques to use when things go wrong. They should not be opposed because they are not “in the book.” We need to be ready to battle against the enemy. We can’t do that if we close our minds to new techniques and training. The bottom line is that we need to reduce firefighter deaths, and classes such as Saving Our Own, self-rescue techniques, and RIT training will do that. My hat is off to the instructors who teach us these survival skills and to Fire Engineering for printing the articles to keep us informed. Keep up the good work!
Keith Orndorff
Firefighter
Mattoon (IL) Fire Department
I would like to respond to John J. Gelinas’ letter concerning the headfirst ladder slide. I can understand and appreciate his right to disagree with this technique considering his obvious training and background, but I take offense to his reference to “so-called fire service professionals,” which would imply that anyone teaching this technique is less professional and knowledgeable than he. As a fire service instructor, I teach a firefighter survival class that includes the headfirst ladder slide. It is strongly stressed in the class that the ladder slide is to be used only as a last resort; other options are also taught to the students. I do not advocate this technique to get speaking engagements. I teach it to give firefighters every possible means to survive.
Gelinas refers to the many variables involved. He asks where the ladder is and whether it is at the proper window. We teach firefighters to know where the ladders are; however, if the ladder is not positioned at the window through which he needs to egress, then obviously the ladder slide would not be an option. I could address all of the variables Gelinas mentions, but the point is there are variables at every incident to which we respond that will force us to change our tactics. That does not mean the tactic is unsound.
I agree with Gelinas that there are departments that send firefighters into burning buildings without sufficient training; that needs to be corrected. However, survival training must also be taught. It is not designed as a replacement for basic skills; it is meant to supplement them.
I thank the editors of Fire Engineering for covering these new skills and hope that they will continue to review new ideas, controversial or not. Firefighters need to know that there is a better option than dying in the building.
Jay Ofsanik
Adjunct Instructor
Pennsylvania State Fire Academy
Rescue Captain
Uniontown (PA) Fire Department
After reading John J. Gelinas’ letter, I couldn’t get to my word processor fast enough. I will dispense with the being shocked and appalled bit and just simply state that I couldn’t believe what I was reading.
What I find unbelievable is that anyone who considers himself a fire service professional would, with knowledge and intent, withhold potentially lifesaving training techniques from personnel. As fire service instructors and training officers, we have an obligation, a duty, and a moral responsibility to afford our personnel every chance of surviving a situation in which fire conditions change and firefighters can become trapped. Those who would state that their personnel would never be found in such a situation are naive, are recklessly irresponsible, or simply don’t go to fires.
Also in the January 2001 issue is an article by Captain John G. Riker (Training Notebook) on SCBA failure and some survival techniques that can be employed in such a situation. Is removing your regulator and sticking your facepiece in the carpet an extreme measure? Yes. If firefighters are not trained and comfortable in this and other SCBA emergency practices, are they much more likely to panic and rip their facepiece off in such a situation? Yes again. Are we going to withhold this type of training because there is “no valid reason” for SCBA to fail or a firefighter to run out of air under fire conditions? Does the Air Force fail to train pilots in ejection-seat procedures because there is “no valid reason” for a half-billion-dollar aircraft to suddenly want to fall out of the sky? Preposterous!
Using the same logic applied by Gelinas would preclude all of the other firefighter safety and survival training currently provided by responsible instructors across the nation. We would stop teaching the Denver Drill, which was developed after the loss of Mark Langvardt in Denver, because “there is no valid reason” firefighters should find themselves trapped in narrow spaces. We would stop teaching the Nance Drill, which was developed in response to the loss of John Nance, because there is “no valid reason” to find it necessary to remove an unconscious firefighter from a basement or cellar. Is the headfirst ladder slide going to be named for a firefighter who died in a fire building because his training-or worse, training officer-wasn’t responsible enough to train him in every self-rescue technique available? “The firefighter on the street” is not the one we’re worried about-it’s the firefighter trapped in the fire building with no other option of escape.
As someone who has taught and will continue to teach the ladder slide as well as other firefighter safety and survival techniques, I will proudly stand beside the fire service professionals I respect and admire such as Lieutenant Bob Pressler, Battalion Chief John Salka, Captain Mike Lombardo, Chief Rick Lasky, and a long list of others who have made the survival of firefighters caught in life-threatening situations their mission and their passion, as well as their duty.
Greg Falkenthal
Captain
Vallejo (CA) Fire Department
Higher education will enhance fire service
I read with interest Jeff Allen’s Letter to the Editor (January 2001) in reference to “Promoting Higher Education in the Fire Service” by William C. Rivenbark, Ph.D., and “George H. McCall (Fire Engineering, September 2000).
Without question, the fire service has had to compete for the limited funding available from taxing districts and municipalities. The nauseating echo of “do more with less” from all levels of government continues to cost this nation countless lives and dollars in property loss.
Every member of the fire service must be a public relations consultant to educate this nation about the importance of the fire service’s role and function. “Getting back to basics,” as Allen suggests, will not thrust the fire service forward. If the fire service does not step outside its own internal view and educate its members with higher levels of learning, how can it communicate its true cause or future needs? The knowledge, skills, and abilities required of all members of the fire service have grown beyond the motto of “put the wet stuff on the red stuff.” To compete for the limited funding available to the fire service, the fire service as a whole needs better educated individuals to communicate its needs and functions.
I agree with every person who tells me that “a piece of paper” (college degree) does not mean a thing. However, I explain to them the journey I traveled to obtain that “piece of paper” is where the true education takes place. The skills needed for our future success are simply not taught or learned at the “company level” of fire training. There is a big difference between training and education.
Requiring this higher-education journey of all our fire service individuals will help each to develop professionally. By “professionally,” I mean that each fire service member will enhance his abilities within the profession through networking; improved communication and teaching skills; the ability to conduct research and present findings; enhanced public speaking skills; the abilities to design, develop, and present justified budgets; enhanced human resource management skills; and the ability to brainstorm for a better fire service for tomorrow. These skills and many more not mentioned above are not the needs of the future fire service; they are skills desperately needed now! The fire service should be the author of its own book “Roadmap to the Future” through higher education of its members instead of allowing the professional and political bean counters to write it for us.
David G. Kilbury, MS
Lieutenant’/Paramedic
Cape Coral (FL) Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services
A dying breed
After reading the commentary “The Last of a Dying Breed” by Charles Angione (Fire Commentary, Fire Engineering, January 2001), I felt the urge to reach out and shake his hand and say thanks. His views of the fire service today are right on.
I have wanted to be a firefighter from the time I read Dennis Smith’s “Report from Engine Co. 82.” It made me and many others want to get involved in a traditional organization where firefighters are firefighters … [who] want to go to work doing what we do best, fighting a fire in a burning building. All that has been changed by outside agencies that have an interest in the fire service for profits and gains. Outside influences have changed the passion for the job as we have known it. Our attitudes toward the job have changed, and we are continuing to move away from our traditional teachings. Many firefighters coming on the job have other goals than those taught to us. The expression “nothing is forever” has replaced “leather forever.”
Some changes are for the better if they will save a firefighter’s life. But some changes, or improvements, are also injuring and even leading to the deaths of our firefighters. But, those pushing for the improvements won’t admit it.
I keep hearing at seminars across the country: “Let’s take a get-back-to-basics approach.” I agree, but let’s do it so we can learn, teach, and understand the basics before we continue to jump into the new improvements that still need to be proven. We need to teach and inform those with interests in the fire service who have influence over what we have done and what we should continue to do. We have to let these people understand what we do and how we do it before we won’t be allowed to do it anymore.
David J. Traiforos
Chief of Department
Franklin Park (IL) Fire Department
FIRE Act represents “first victory of many to come”
This is in response to Charles Angione’s Letter to the Editor “FIRE Act a hollow victory” in the January 2001 issue. What he managed to do with his letter was to spit into the face of everyone who worked so hard to bring the fire service a monumental victory-not a “hollow victory.” I can picture him sitting in his station, waiting for Ed McMahon’s van to roll up out front to present him with a $10 million check! ellipse. We all work hard to improve service to our communities. It is a thankless job most of the time, but the one thing that we don’t do when the pressure is on is to break rank and point fingers.
We all know what law enforcement gets in federal funding. Ever wonder why they get what they get? Maybe it is because they have been yelling louder and fighting harder-plus, they have public sentiment on their side (“If we don’t get more money, more of us will die.”). I am happy for them, because they face many of the same perils we do. Well, now it is our turn.
I am proud of the efforts of all of the national fire service organizations and everyone who served on the Blue Ribbon Panel. Each of them has changed the history of our nation’s fire service for the next generations. They stood up for all who quietly go about their business day in and day out and make due with what they have-you know how it goes: Plan for the worst and hope for the best. There is nothing hollow about that. These organizations and individuals may not have invented the thermal imaging camera, but they have created a greater opportunity for having these cameras be put into the hands of every department in our country. But then, how many departments will take the time to do what is required to obtain the money?
We will do whatever it takes to continue toward the goal of obtaining adequate funding for every fire department in our great nation. Hollow victory? I believe that it is the first victory of many more victories to come!
Art Goodrich
Chief
Clover Township Fire Department
Woodhull, Illinois
Tank Car Safety course
I am writing this letter to let your readers know that the Union Pacific Railroad offers the Tank Car Safety course for first responders that provides training in rail emergencies involving tank cars. Fire department members can attend without cost, except for personal expenses. The weeklong school is held at the Transportation Technology Center Emergency Response Training Center in Pueblo, Colorado, which is leased from the Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI), which also provides the instructors. Three real-life derailment scenarios are presented.
Among the subjects covered in the training are detecting the presence of hazardous materials, command and control activities, size-up, material hazard and response data, assessing the extent of tank car damage, predicting the likely behavior of the material and its container, response options, personal protective equipment, decontamination, and mitigation.
The course is offered twice a year. Training slots are limited. Responders whose jurisdictions are along the railroad’s right of way are given first priority. For information, or to register, contact Charles J. Wright at Charles_J._Wright@notes. up.com, or call (402) 271-3313.
Ed Keeser
Firefighter
Douglassville (TX) Volunteer Fire Department
