Mike Love’s “Chief Must Advocate Building Fire Safety” (Fire Engineering, January 2009) made some excellent points and was thought-provoking. However, it did not go far enough.
 |
Inspections without enforcement do not get a great deal of change accomplished. Engine companies that may only be on duty every third day are not terribly well-suited to motivating business owners to spend money to comply with fire codes. In the case of the Charleston, S.C., Sofa Super Store tragedy, do we really think that the owner would have voluntarily committed hundreds of thousands of dollars to a fire sprinkler retrofit installation if a local engine company had walked through the store and mentioned it in the months before the fire occurred?
Business owners may unlock chained exit doors at the request of the visiting engine company, but will that exit door remain unlocked day after day unless the business owner is made aware that an unannounced inspection by a fire inspector may subject him to hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines?
In Building Construction for the Fire Service, Fourth Edition, the late Francis L. Brannigan and Glenn P. Corbett advocated that prefire planning be separated from the inspection function: “An inspection is essentially a policing function. In an inspection, the property should be examined to see whether or not it complies with standards. If it does not comply, penalties may result. The inspector, therefore, is principally a police officer.”
Only a professional fire inspector, who is not distracted by the other demands placed on shift personnel and who has the time and training to issue written notices of violation, should do follow-up inspections. Using the municipal code enforcement system of fines and penalties (essentially a court of law process) to motivate the business owner can produce positive change and more fire-safe buildings. The fire inspection process should start when the municipality receives an application for a building permit and should continue for the life of the building. The building owner should be charged adequate fees to cover the cost of ongoing fire inspections. The building or business owner will then fully realize that he is responsible for fire safety in that place of business.
Note: I have had more than four decades of experience in the fire service. After retiring from a career with Palm Beach County, Florida, I served as a fire safety inspector in Florida.
Oscar Wiltse
Firefighter/EMT-P
Palm Beach County, Florida
Sometimes change creates problems
Editor in Chief Bobby Halton’s “The Right Thing and the Right Way” (Editor’s Opinion, February 2009) was excellent and hit it right on the head. I am an advocate of the incident command system and organization at an incident; but, unfortunately, adaptation and interpretation are issues.
The states for the most part, in my opinion, pretty much had been using a very well-organized incident command system in the Midwest and on the East Coast for a long, long time, even before Chief Alan Brunacini. His system strengthened and reinforced what was being done.
FIRESCOPE definitely works for the West Coast. Why couldn’t things just be left alone and something similar to the National Incident Management System be taught for large-scale incidentsthose disasters that involve many agencies? Sometimes the Feds, while well-meaning, are still out of touch with the real world.
Scott M. Peterson
Lieutenant
Elk Grove Village (IL) Fire Department
