Shouldn’t all wildland firefighters be trained?
As a retired Fire Department of New York firefighter, I am puzzled and bewildered when the media report that a wildland fire is being fought by inmates and firefighters. I wonder what the public and government administrators’ perceptions of the fire service are when career and volunteer firefighters are being augmented with convicts.
Within the past few years, the fire service has aggressively marketed itself in the areas of quality EMS, community education, and customer service. Currently, most departments require a degree in fire technology or some college units. Firefighters are trained in incident size-up, search, suppression, EMS response, prevention, and a myriad of specialized rescues. Chauffeurs (engineers) are qualified in apparatus function, friction loss, nozzle pressures, and pump panel operations. Incident commanders have the analytical experience and knowledge to identify problems and their solutions while controlling the incident.
When the fire chief arrives at City Hall requesting pay raises and additional firefighters, perhaps the city manager’s solution might be “Let’s simply open the jailhouse doors.”
Dan Noonan
San Diego, California
Aerials and NFPA 1901 compliance
Hats off to Fire Engineering and William C. Peters (Apparatus Points to Ponder: “There Are No NFPA Police,” October 1999). Finally, a fire service journal is responsibly addressing and bringing to light in words and photographs the issue of noncompliance of fire apparatus with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 1996 (revised 1999). I sincerely hope that this article is the starting point for a series of articles regarding fire apparatus that do not meet NFPA minimum standards. These articles serve as an educational tool for future purchasers of fire apparatus and may also serve as a wake-up call to any manufacturer that does not meet the minimum standards.
With 19 years of experience in the fire service and fire apparatus industry, I have seen that the most serious and blatant areas of noncompliance with minimum NFPA 1901 standards have been in aerial devices. An aerial device-whether it is a telescoping boom, a straight aerial or “quint,” or an aerial/elevating platform-is the most dangerous piece of equipment a fire department can own and operate. Yet, time and time again, I have seen fire departments purchase and accept aerial apparatus that do not meet the minimum NFPA 1901 standards. Ignorance of the safety and construction standards for aerial devices is no excuse for placing firefighters and victims in jeopardy.
Peters brings up the important point that apparatus purchasers should conduct a good inspection of their new apparatus to ensure compliance with NFPA 1901. It has always been my contention, however, that apparatus purchasers should verify that the aerial manufacturer produces an aerial device that meets the minimum NFPA 1901 standards before they make the purchase. To do this, the purchaser must thoroughly understand the standards and must write a detailed specification that includes the NFPA 1901 minimum standards as requirements the manufacturer must meet. It is not enough for the purchaser to write in the specification “boilerplate” that it is his intent to buy an aerial device that meets NFPA 1901 criteria. As one former United States President once said: “Trust … but verify!”
Following are some of the most blatant areas of noncompliance (which directly affect the safety of aerial users) we have found on new aerial devices.
- Ladder rungs are not spaced on 14-inch centers.
- Ladder rungs do not have a skid-resistant surface, or covering does not cover 60 percent of the length of the rung.
- Ladder fly sections are not a minimum of 18 inches wide between the rails, measured at the narrowest point, excluding equipment.
- The ladder’s top rails (handrails) are not a minimum width of one inch and not a minimum of 12 inches high above the centerline of the rungs, especially on the last fly section.
- Aerials have no handrails whatsoever, yet the manufacturer claims that the aerial meets all NFPA ladder requirements.
- Step height distances from the turntable to the first step on the aerial or platform exceeds 18 inches.
- Aerials are not equipped with a load chart or sign clearly describing the aerial’s rated load capacities at the operator’s control station.
- Aerials are not equipped with an illuminated elevation-indicating device.
- Aerials are equipped with a secondary aerial ladder operator’s position at the tip of the outermost fly section (commonly known as “creeper controls” or ladder tip controls) but are not equipped with any or all of the following: a lower control station override, a momentary activation switch at the lower control station, or fold-down steps near the tip of the fly that shall be weight supporting before the tip controls can be activated.
- Aerial platforms are not equipped with a four-inch-high minimum kickplate around the floor of the platform.
- Aerial platforms are not equipped with a continuous guard railing that is a minimum of 42 inches high.
- Aerials are not rated in 250-pound increments in addition to any firefighting equipment installed on the ladder or elevating platform.
- Turntable railings are not at least 42 inches high.
- Aerials do not provide a continuous egress from the aerial to the ground with the aerial in an elevated position.
By investigating some of the areas of noncompliance listed above, you will be surprised to discover just how any aerials built within the past four years actually do not meet many of the minimum NFPA 1901 standards. Although it is true that there are no NFPA police, it is encouraging to see that Fire Engineering is stepping up to the plate on NFPA 1901 noncompliance issues. Keep up the good work!
Philip R. Lincoln
Managing Partner
Fire Apparatus Consulting Services
(FACS)
Ocala, Florida
Unnecessary overhauling can interfere with fire investigation
Having conducted fire investigations for more than 20 years in the public and private sectors, as well as having taught fire/arson investigation courses worldwide, I wish to clarify some information published in “More Hose Stuff,” Random Thoughts, Fire Engineering, July 1999. Tom Brennan, in explaining “tricks,” describes one of them as follows: “Another trick that saves on time and sprains when overhauling fires in frame buildings is to be able to ‘wash’ the debris of overhauling off the floor and out of the building to the ground below.”
If overhaul crews did this, there would be very few correct origin-and-cause determinations and probably no arrests or convictions for incendiary-caused fires. By washing down the fire scene prior to the fire investigator’s examination of the scene, the overhaul crews have seriously contaminated the scene by flushing possible crucial pieces of evidence to the ground below. Some or all of this evidence may never be recovered for use in future criminal or civil court proceedings.
In addition, Brennan describes the proper method of removing a window and apron wall so “the overhaul line can wash the floor to the outside of the building.” The article continues: “There are many benefits to doing this. The floor is exposed immediately for the arson team to investigate.” Again, if this procedure were followed prior to the fire investigator’s examining the scene, the overhaul crew could be destroying important burn patterns crucial to the investigator’s determining the fire’s origin.
Overhaul is an important part of fire extinguishment. If there is any doubt as to the presence of remaining sparks or embers that could reignite the fire, by all means, the danger should be removed. However, if the overhaul of the room of origin is done only to remove room contents, pull down walls and ceilings, remove windows, and ‘wash’ the floors-and a fire investigator is responding-STOP! Once it is determined that a fire investigation is going to be conducted, all unnecessary overhaul, especially in the room of origin, should be delayed until the investigation has been completed. This delay of overhaul should include leaving all room contents in their original places; all wall, ceiling, and floor coverings intact; and all fire debris in the room of origin untouched.
The fire investigator must use smoke, heat, and fire patterns not only on room contents but also on structural members to properly identify fire travel in determining the point or area of origin. The cause of the fire can be determined only after the point or area of origin has been located. An integral part of the fire investigation is reconstruction of the scene, and the investigator’s job is much easier if he does not have to haul furnishings back into the structure from the yard or replace windows and other structural members needlessly removed.
The fire investigator uses certain procedures when examining the room of origin, which include the proper method of removing and possibly sifting fire debris in the quest for finding evidence of accidental or incendiary-caused fires. Once the overhaul crew has removed a piece of evidence, the investigator or evidence technician can never return it to its exact original location for proper documentation. Such an occurrence may force the court to disallow that piece of evidence in future trial proceedings, thus causing the arsonist to be acquitted.
Most state statutes stipulate that fire scene activities are not completed until a cause for the fire has been determined.
Fredric J. Keller, CFI
Pittsford, New York
Pumper needed
The Franklin (VA) Fire Department would like to purchase a pumper that was manufactured no later than in the 1980s, is in good condition, and has a 750-gallon tank and a pump that can produce at least 1,000 gpm. Please contact Chief J.D. Eggleston at (757) 562-8581.
Eddie Carter
President
Virginia State Firefighter’s Association
