Clearing up TIC confusion
After reading “Tips for Using Thermal Imaging Cameras” by John G. Riker (Training Notebook, May 2002), I felt compelled to write and address several issues.
Riker states, “Before entering a room, adjust the camera’s focus. (Some models use a gain adjustment or throttle control to adjust the iris, a mechanical aperture that controls the camera’s focus.)” This is completely inaccurate. All cameras presently used in the fire service are fixed focus cameras. Adjusting a “thermal throttle” is an option available on one particular camera. It does not have anything to do with the focus of the camera.
Riker further states: “Adjusting the camera’s focus will sharpen the image and make the room’s contents, conditions, and dangers more recognizable.” This statement is dangerous and misleading. Each camera has a focal point, the distance from the lens out in front of the camera, where the camera will not focus; anything within that distance is not recognizable. An example might be a hole in the floor or steps. To lead the reader to believe that the camera can be focused and that these and other dangers will be seen clearly is inaccurate and dangerous. I am aware of several cases in which firefighters have been misled with this type of poor training and have fallen down steps.
Riker states that the operator should “look for the signs of flashover and rollover. High heat buildup, sporadic flashes of flames, and heavy buildup of smoke are preludes to flashover.” First of all, not all cameras will give the same image under these conditions. Riker makes no mention of the type of operating principle of the camera. The type of engine the camera uses can have an effect on the image the user sees. That is why it is important for departments to have camera-specific training. I have used some cameras that are so sensitive that they do not show flame. Yet, Riker leads the readers to believe that this will be seen in the image.
As far as seeing the billowing smoke is concerned, smoke cannot be seen in the image. The convected energy in the smoke may be seen; however, the smoke cannot.
Riker says that the camera can be used to determine liquid levels in tanks. It should be noted that this would work only for single-walled vessels-and even then, not under all conditions. The operator must consider reflection, the angle of view, and several other factors.
As for the searching methods, first let me say personnel should not be taught that there is only one way to search. I would like to see the tests Riker speaks of conducted with personnel trained in thermal imaging and who have experience using the cameras.
With regard to the section on hazardous materials, NO camera available to the fire service is intrinsically safe; therefore, thermal imaging cameras should not be used within a potentially explosive atmosphere. A far safer approach would be to use the camera from the cold zone.
Steven Woodworth
Lieutenant
Atlanta (GA) Fire Department
I would like to comment on John Riker’s article. First, all firefighting thermal imaging cameras (TICs) have a fixed focus lense. What the author did not say was that he was talking about older BST technology when he stated that the camera had to be “focused.” This is not focusing; on BST technology, you have to adjust the iris whether it is done automatically or manually (throttle). What you are doing with the BST camera is cutting down the amount of energy focused onto the focal plane (sensor). This has to be done so the user sees the fire scene without saturation of the image. This cuts down on your dynamic range of operation where you can lose all important scene detail and definition. The newer technology (“Microbolometers”) does not have an iris to limit the amount of energy into the sensor, so you will get a clearer picture and higher dynamic range of operation in a fire.
Users of TICs should keep in mind that all masses absorb and give off heat differently. Riker talks about seeing a “frost line” in a liquid container. This is not a frost line like you would see on an LPG tank. You will see two different shades of black over white or white over black, depending on the temperature of the product in the container and the environment that the container is in or subjected to. Be advised that an insulated container or one sitting in an ambient environment may not show you the liquid level unless a heat source is subjected to it.
As a fire officer and someone working for a leading manufacturer in the IR field, I would not send a nonintrinsically safe TIC into an explosive environment. I would not want the liability. There is not an intrinsically safe firefighting thermal imaging camera on the market today because the cameras have too much voltage (liquid crystal display being one of the causes) inside. If a case were breached or a seal were bad, it could let the explosive products into the TIC, and the TIC would not be able to contain the explosion. Just because you can put most TICs in a meter of water does not make them intrinsically safe.
Riker also refers to taking a spare battery with you. Please read the battery warning put on by the manufacturer. Most say, “Do not expose to heat and flame.” Some of the batteries become more sensitive because of gases that build up as they degrade to having a problem. The user should make sure a full battery is in the TIC before getting off the apparatus. All the systems on the market have batteries that will outlast the time you could spend fighting a fire inside a residential structure.
Check the manufacturer’s spec sheet to see if the TIC was tested for radio interference and electrical interference. This would be FCC and CE regulations covering electromagnetic emissions, electromagnetic immunity, static discharge immunity, and AC voltage fluctuations. Most of the time the person with the TIC has a portable radio and has to explain to the incident commander what he is seeing while talking to the IC over the radio.
The user should learn how the TIC will work and about thermal interpretation at a training class in a live fire before the TIC is put into service. There are training courses for every TIC on the market. The camera is only as good as the training the person using it has had.
Keep in mind that when using a TIC, you should be crawling. If you can’t see your feet, get down because your crew will need to crawl. Remember, if you are walking, your crew will not keep up with you, and you are subjecting yourself to more heat than your body wants by standing up.
Use your TIC on every call; it’s not just for a working fire. This is another tool in your toolbox; please use it safely.
David F. Harrison
Captain
Kennebunk (ME) Fire and Rescue
National Sales Manager
Cairns Advanced Technologies
Live fire training
Many thanks to Lauren Keyson for her timely Burning Issues “Live Fire Training vs. Little Circuses” (June 2002). I strongly agree with FDNY Battalion Chief John Salka’s views on the value of true live fire training. More and more firefighters are deemed competent without the experience that can be obtained only through true live fire training.
Burn buildings, regardless of the level of technology, expose the student to excessive levels of heat but little else. Chiefs should expect to see damaged protective equipment with little or no improvement of skill and knowledge from lessons given in a burn building.
There is no substitute for the experiences gained from properly conducted live fire training. Sure, it is costly in time, effort, and dollars. But if you think live fire training is expensive, look into the cost of ignorance.
Major Harold Hoskins
Lexington (KY) Division of Fire and Emergency Services
Fighting “routine” garage fires
In regard to Bruce Richard’s article “The ‘Routine’ Garage Fire” (May 2002), in case of a (self-closing) door with a rated fire-resistance of 30 minutes in the United States (90 minutes in Germany), I strongly feel that this kind of door should be kept closed as long and as much as possible in case of a garage fire. While I generally support positive-pressure ventilation (PPV), I do not believe that any PPV tactics or equipment will prevent secondary damage to the house itself by smoke, water steam, and/or further spread of fire.
 |
Personnel should try to contain the fire (and secondary damage) to the garage only. Instead of advancing the primary attack line (attack lines themselves are already wet and dirty enough to ruin a house!), attempt to open/force open garage doors and windows to allow for horizontal ventilation and primary fire attack. Open garage doors and windows with much caution because of the unknown contents of garages (car, gasoline, lubricants, propane gas cylinders, welding equipment, paint, solvents, fertilizers, pest control chemicals-you name it!). It might be useful to try to damp down a working fire by shooting a fog stream or CAFS through a garage window before opening the big door.
Parallel to that, deploy a team to search the house for occupants, to CLOSE the connecting door to the garage and safeguard that door. However, the charged safeguard hoseline-depending on geometry and size of the structure-usually can be kept outside of the nearest house door. Even if this tactic might lead to pushing the fire into areas of the yet unburned parts of the garage, I do believe that trying to keep the house clean makes a little bit more sense here than jeopardizing the house by opening a door that by building codes is THERE to separate the garage from the house.
Dr. Holger de Vries
Platoon Commander
Hamburg Fire & Rescue Service Station F1931 Stellingen
Hamburg, Germany
NFIRS 5: there’s hope
Regarding the interview with Michael Fay (“NFIRS 5 Progress: Stop the Standards Madness,” Fire Engineering, May 2002), FEMA has created a usable national standard for collection of fire incident reporting data. It just needs a little help, and Essential Data Solutions (EDS) can provide it for free.
Fay is certainly right about the shifting sands of NFIRS 5 standards. And FEMA’s actions, which resulted in the destruction of many dedicated fire service software vendors, are unconscionable. Fay is again right on target when he states, “Just as technology becomes affordable for the average fire department, FEMA’s actions-blaming their mistakes on the vendors-destroyed many of the companies that were working to bring technology to the fire service in the competitive marketplace.”
The result of FEMA’s actions is that the fire service has a lot less choice today than it did just three years ago. Many fire service software vendors have been driven out of business.
However, the situation is not as hopeless as Fay paints it. The free market will find a way. The truth is that most of the changes to FEMA specifications are trivial. For example, the way the word “lane” is abbreviated (Lane, LA, LN) was changed. FEMA considers these minor grammar and punctuation discrepancies as “fatal errors” and will reject the uploads back to the state or department, even though there is no effect on the basic, vital fire department statistics.
In response to the 20 years of frustration and loss of millions of dollars by now-defunct software vendors across the country, Essential Data Solutions, a service company spun off from Arrakis Publishing (parent company of FirePrograms), created a process to upload files after making the trivial changes (if necessary) to bring them into conformity with the latest specifications of the FEMA standard. The changes made by EDS do not change the substance of the reports; the changes are limited to making abbreviations and punctuation consistent with “today’s” NFIRS specifications so the data can be counted in the national statistics.
EDS can also convert version 4 data to version 5 using specifications published by FEMA for the department’s use. These converted files, however, should not be up-loaded to FEMA-per FEMA mandate.
EDS provides this service for individual departments, counties, and states. The variant upload files are e-mailed to EDS, processed, and returned for uploading to the FEMA system. In addition, EDS maintains a Web site where you can see the current overview of the fire experience in the United States. The service is free; check it out at www.edscentral.net.
Joe Ziegler
President
FirePrograms
Smooth bore vs. fog nozzle debate
I have been reading with some frustration the letters between Armand Guzzi and William Crapo (Letters to the Editor, May 2002) on the smooth bore vs. fog nozzle debate. I have some experience in this argument. About five years ago, our department (a small department in east Houston with limited staffing) was looking for a way to “beef up” our initial attack at structure fires. I had read Fire Stream Management Handbook by David P. Fornell (Fire Engineering, 1991) and had the opportunity to hear him speak at the FDIC several years ago. I like the arguments he made for the smooth bore. After my discussion with our assistant chief, we purchased 150 feet of two-inch hose and a large tip smooth bore nozzle.
The concept was met with resistance, a lot of head shaking, and suggestions that I should seek therapy. I explained that the idea is to deliver more water on the initial attack. With the two-inch hose and the smooth bore, we are flowing well over 200 gpm with a very low engine pressure and virtually no nozzle reaction. The hose is very easy for one person to manage. Most importantly, this theory is not for every fire. I suggested it for a fully involved, fire-spreading-next-door fire that you can see from the station. In fact, during our next few fires, I kept the smooth bore on the truck because I did not consider it appropriate.
Slowly, we began to use the two-inch hose with the smooth bore; those who used it were quite happy with it. They thought it was very easy to manage and could knock down a pretty good fire.
There are people in our department who don’t want any part of the smooth bore. That’s fine; they can pull one of the other lines with a fog nozzle on it. A fog nozzle and a smooth bore are tools on a fire apparatus for different jobs. Each has advantages and disadvantages. I am not suggesting you get rid of all your fog nozzles in favor of smooth bore.
Crapo does make an excellent point in his letter-that an improper attack with a fog nozzle will spread the fire. He says you must attack a fire from the unburned side so as not to spread the fire. Why? Mainly because of the large amount of air a fog nozzle develops and moves. This is easily proven by spraying a fog pattern out a window to ventilate an area. Try this sometime with a smooth bore-you will be there awhile. The straight stream puts out the fire by cooling the burning material.
I do have reservations, however, about closing the door and letting the steam sink in. We all learned in fire training how much steam was created by the expansion of one gallon of water. This would be bad for any person in the room.
Will Wyatt
Jacinto City (TX) Fire Department
“Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back”
This is in regard to Bill Manning’s Editor’s Opinion “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back” (April 2002). FDNY Deputy Chief Charles Blaich has nothing but sour grapes and is spewing erroneous information. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has never stopped its members in the aviation unit-or any other unit, for that matter-from having communications with FDNY. In fact, it was FDNY that removed the NYPD division radios from all of its ambulances. This was to stop FDNY EMS units from calling the NYPD’s Emergency Service Unit directly over the NYPD’s own radio system for vehicle extrications and other rescue jobs.
I have a copy of the memo sent out to all FDNY EMS units telling them not to call anyone other than their own dispatcher so that only FDNY units would be dispatched regardless of how close an ESU unit might be to the incident. This policy jeopardizes not only the safety of all police officers in the field but also that of the general public.
An EMS unit used to be able to monitor police frequencies, which would give it a quicker response to calls for assistance by police officers and civilians who are injured. That no longer exists. Furthermore, to say that the police helicopter crew had any knowledge that the WTC towers were going to collapse and that they did not let the FDNY know is insane.
Let’s not forget that 23 NYPD officers also died in those buildings. It was impossible to foresee that those towers were going to fall; everyone knows that.
As a member of the ESU for the past 15 years, I can tell you that the fire chiefs operating at the WTC or any other incident had never in the past and never would in the future listen to anything an NYPD supervisor has to say. An NYPD supervisor would not have been welcome at the WTC lobby command post and would only have been ignored by FDNY.
As for Blaich’s comments on Police Commissioner Bernard “Arrest the Firefighters” Kerik, it seems to me that Blaich is jealous that Kerik was paid a fee to speak at the NFPA’s annual meeting in May and Blaich was not invited. Does Blaich condone the behavior of those firefighters who were arrested? They assaulted police officers. This was a slap in the face to 16,000 firefighters? The assault on our police officers was a slap in the face to 30,000 police officers. I guess firefighters should be held above the law.
Blaich really should get his facts straight. I would expect a little more from someone in his position.
Glen Klein
Detective
New York City Police Department
Emergency Service Unit # 10
