LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Defense remarks made in Great Adventure fire court case “extremely offensive”
Following is a copy of the response made by Salvador J. Madama, former fire chief of the Laconia, NH, Fire Department to statements made in a court case relating to the Great Adventure fire (see “Horror in a Haunted Castle,” FIRE ENGINEERING, August 1984). This fire, which occurred on May 11, 1984, in Jackson Township, NJ, resulted in the fatalities of eight people, as reported by newsreporter Donald Janson in THE NEW YORK TIMES.
This is a copy of my response to the extremely offensive remarks publicly expressed by John Allison of Houston, TX, Rolf Jensen of Illinois, and Chester Schirmer, chairman of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) committee on automatic sprinklers. They have taken the position on be-half of the defendants and disputed the value and installation of automatic sprinklers and smoke alarms at the Haunted Castle, which burned at the Six Flags Great Adventure Amusement Park in Jackson Township, NJ, on May 11, 1984, resulting in eight deaths.
Chairman Schirmer’s remarks are absolutely contrary to the published material in the NFPA’s FIRE PROTECTION HANDBOOK. Perhaps he should practice what he prints. The following may refresh his memory on the values of automatic sprinklers:
Automatic sprinklers, properly installed and maintained, provide effective safeguards against loss of life by fire. Their value is psychological as well as physical. They give a sense of security to the occupants of buildings and minimize the possibility of panic.
NFPA records of loss of life by fire show that in completely sprinklered buildings, fire fatalities have been minimal.
Automatic sprinklers are particularly effective for life safety because they give warning of the existence of fire, and at the same time apply water to the fire area.
There is no case in the NFPA records of over 100,000 fires in automatic sprinkler buildings where water from automatic sprinklers has in any way contributed to panic or caused any other hazard to occupants.
NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, recognizes sprinklers in numerous ways, particularly to offset deficiencies in existing buildings. For example, longer travel exits and interior finish of a higher combustibility are permitted with sprinklers.
Savings in insurance premiums alone could in numerous cases be adequate to finance over a few years time the installation of automatic sprinkler protection. Of equal importance are the many building code “trade-offs” that are allowed where sprinklers are installed. These trade-offs permit an increase in undivided area and often less fire resistance for the building construction, and therefore less erection cost. . . .
Automatic sprinkler systems of one type or another have been known to extinguish or control practically every type of fire in practically all materials in use today. . . .
Statements uttered by the “experts” on behalf of Great Adventure indicated that automatic sprinklers are not designed to preserve life safety, and that shouting “fire” is more effective than smoke alarms.
In my professional opinion, the installation of properly installed automatic sprinklers and smoke alarms, together with reduced flamespread ratings of construction materials and reduced fire loads may have prevented or at least minimized this terrible tragedy. The above package represents the ultimate in fire protection.
A vote of confidence for contact lenses
Once again, FIRE ENGINEERING has demonstrated why it is the leader in the field of fire service periodicals. I am referring to the timely article in the July 1985 issue, “A Closer Look at Contact Lenses.”
I know that for the many thousands of firefighters with perfect vision, the article was probably skimmed, if not skipped altogether. As for me, both a volunteer and career firefighter who wears contact lenses, the article was long overdue. Every firefighter who wears contact lenses has conducted his own “study” of the effect of smoke on his eyes. Now, the secret is out. People with contact lenses can “belly down” with the best of them, if not better in certain atmospheres, as the article points out.
The real issue, however, still needs to be addressed. Why should a perfectly healthy individual who wears contacts be excluded from the ranks of a career fire department? “What?” you say. Why you have seen many veteran firefighters with eyeglasses. Sure, once you are “on the job” your eyesight can deteriorate because very few paid fire departments maintain entry level physical standards for all members. Besides, visibility in the worst situation is zero. Still, discrimination takes place every time a potential candidate for “the academy” is disqualified because he wears corrective lenses.
This is not an issue in the volunteer departments, thank goodness. A thorough physical with no obvious deficiencies will get you onto a volunteer department that fights fires the same way as the career departments do. So, why use eyesight as a decisive criteria in eliminating candidates? Obviously, this tradition came about with the advent of steam engines and horse-drawn hose carts.
Hopefully, the results of the study being conducted in California will be used to update the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard to include contacts. Also, may the data gathered be used to update the “physical standards” criteria for hiring. Let’s bring these standards in line with our current technology (extended wear lenses).
In closing, I applaud Mr. Moschella and Mr. Kuperstein for researching such an important topic (to those of us with contacts). Unfortunately, I must remain anonymous as I circumvented the traditional eyesight standards to insure my place in a career fire department. Hopefully, all other individuals who desire to join the ranks of the bravest will not be discouraged because they wear corrective lenses and will use some ingenuity to pass the eye exam.
A career/volunteer firefighter
with a bachelor degree in fire science
Central New York
FIRE ENGINEERING’S 1985 Index
Due to a shortage of space and an abundance of valuable material, our index for last year could not be printed in the pages of FIRE ENGINEERING.
Anyone wishing a copy of our 1985 listing of articles and authors can have one free of charge by writing to:
FIRE ENGINEERING
875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
Thanks once again for a great year.
Tom Brennan Editor
