“The Can” flashover simulator
Jerry Knapp
Christian Delisio
Rockland County Fire Training Center
Pomona, New York
We thank Chris Kozub for his comments (Letters to the Editor, September 1995) so we can clarify some issues we may not have made clear regarding how the Rockland County Fire Training Center conducts the Flashover Survival Program.
First, it is important to understand our training philosophy:
1. You will fight the way you train.
2. Training should prepare firefighters for real-world situations.
3. Safety during training is the top priority.
We, too, have no tolerance for injuries, and that is why we conduct a risk analysis of each evolution. The analysis takes two forms: formal sit-down discussions and pre- and postevolution after-action reviews. The purpose of the risk analysis is to reinforce safe training practices, evaluate the risk/benefit ratio, and learn and improve our safety and training based on the experience of the last evolution.
As Kozub mentions, certification of instructors is important to ensure safety. All instructors who utilize the flashover simulator have been trained in its safe use by the manufacturer for 16 hours, have been in control of at least two live burns, and have been evaluated and approved by the manufacturer`s trainers. In addition, all Rockland County instructors are New York State-certified, and most have AAS or BS degrees in either fire protection or loss prevention and/or are career firefighters. Several of our instructors, including our supervisor, Walter Morris, hold masters` degrees in fire protection/public administration.
Training with live fire has certain undeniable risks. Since we utilize certified instructors, constantly monitor and evaluate our training, and strictly adhere to the SOP we ourselves have written, our Flashover Survival Training has resulted in zero injuries that required medical treatment to instructors or trainees. Our experience covers 18 months of training, 100 live burns, training more than 600 firefighters.
Kozub apparently does not understand where “the Can” fits into the training of a firefighter. Returning to our philosophy, we have a responsibility to train firefighters to fight real-world fires. Real fires grow from incipient to free burning to flashover. Training fires in concrete burn buildings, whether fueled by multimillion-dollar propane fire simulators or simply pallets and straw, just never go to flashover. Real fires do. Burn building training gives trainees, through repeated evolutions, the false impression that fires will reach a steady state and not progress to dangerous flashover stages. This type of training never shows trainees the real-life cycle of the uncontrolled fires they are being “trained” to extinguish. Burn building fires never get so hot you can`t get under the heat and get in and put the fire out; and even if they do, could you show trainees preflashover conditions or warning signs? The answer is no.
The main value of the program is that it allows firefighters to simply sit and watch the full life cycle of a fire. You can`t do this in a burn building; you certainly can`t do it using an acquired structure; and if the first-time firefighters see it in real life, it may be too late for them.
If firefighters did see a preflashover or actual flashover at a real fire, they were probably too busy trying to extinguish it or run for their lives to gain enough knowledge or experience to prevent themselves from getting caught in a similar situation. Most importantly, in the Can, firefighters have a chance to see, look for, and learn to recognize preflashover conditions. They see and experience a real fire that will follow the real-world time-temperature curve of a fire, not some computer-controlled propane simulation.
Kozub describes this training as “prehistoric.” Granted, getting inside a metal box and then setting the contents on fire until flashover occurs does sound prehistoric. However, a fire is a prehistoric phenomenon, and we are really not ready to combat it until we have seen how quickly and deceitfully it goes from a steady-state fire to flashover and then to thermal collapse. This modern training device has given firefighters the ability to observe uncontrolled fire in a safe way never before possible. The only prehistoric thinking here is on the part of those who would rather use videos, propane simulations, and hay fires to give trainees a false impression of the real-life cycle of unfriendly fire.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by trainees is not routinely damaged. Trainees are rotated after each simulated flashover to get them out of the areas of extreme radiant heat. The trainee sitting in the front of the observation module goes to the rear where he experiences little heat. The second major lesson we can teach trainees in the Can is how effective their PPE is, both pre- and postflashover. Before the flashover, turnout gear keeps them very comfortable. It allows them to remain in a potential flashover environment (high heat) very easily. However, once their gear gets saturated with heat, the protective value begins to drop and the discomfort level begins to rise. During the intense radiant heat of flashover and postflashover, all participants get uncomfortably hot. Note that we said hot, not burned! Trainees experience firsthand just what the design limits of their gear are. The critical lesson learned here is that fully protected in modern PPE, firefighters cannot feel the heat of a potential flashover and their PPE simply will not protect them postflashover. It is absolutely critical to teach them to look for the warning signs so as not to get caught in one.
Using the Can as a PPE demonstration/laboratory is another important use in firefighter training. We can show and firefighters can experience exactly how well and how poorly their PPE protects them from radiant heat. This lesson unquestionably will result in firefighters` lives being saved because they now know their own level of protection from radiant heat.
PPE that was damaged was intentionally taken beyond its limits by instructors. For example, SCBA lenses have been melted by lengthy exposure to the radiant heat of flashover and postflashover. Similarly, reflective trim, face shields, and some helmets have been damaged by excessive heat. These extreme tests are deliberate and planned events and don`t happen during each evolution. If this were the case, Kozub`s comment that this training was too costly would be true.
Of all the arguments, editorials, and emotions regarding the flashover simulator, one fact stands above the rest. Currently, there is no other training available that allows firefighters to observe the full and natural development of structure fire from incipient through flashover and into decay stage in a safe manner. Who would send a firefighter to face a situation in the real world that he has not even seen in training?
We shared Chris Kozub`s concerns and thoughts about using the flashover simulator until we had the opportunity to experience it for ourselves. But Bill Manning, the editor of this magazine, summed it up best after he participated in our Flashover Survival Program: “Still I recognize that seeing and feeling for yourself surely has more impact than words ever will. It is beneficial for firefighters not only to appreciate the limits of their protective gear but to experience the free-burning fire, dense smoke, high heat, and rollover–the warning signs of flashover–all of which are present in the simulator.”
Chris, we have a seat in the Can available for you.
