Fire data boneyard
Bill Manning’s “The Fire Data Boneyard” (Editor’s Opinion, July 2003) missed the mark badly. From the beginning, NFIRS has been approached as all of the following:
- A national fire incident database “to provide an accurate, nationwide analysis of the fire problem, identify major problem areas, assist in setting priorities, determine possible solutions to problems, and monitor the effectiveness of programs to reduce fire losses” (from the National Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974);
- A mechanism for standardization of incident reporting;
- A network of people to support the development of state and local capability to analyze state and local data to support state and local fire safety initiatives and operations;
- A voluntary system without statutory authority to compel reporting at the federal level; and
- An underfunded operation with a fraction of the staff and resources allocated to support comparable federal databases.
How have they done? On the first point, NFIRS has been a spectacular success. Every major national fire-related policy debate of the past two decades has been framed and informed by NFIRS-based analyses. When the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) decide what behaviors to emphasize in fire safety education, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) decides how much more fire safety a proposed product change will achieve, when the owners and managers of various kinds of properties that serve the public want to know whether they have a serious fire problem—and if so, what it is—they all use NFIRS data. “Are you any better off than you were 15 years ago?” You are if you care about making a case for fire safety in any of the national forums for decision making.
The transformation of state and local capability has been impressive as well, though you may have to look harder to see it. Certainly, it hasn’t been as universal as we all would have liked, but try to find another federal data collection agency that has even tried to develop state and local capability on this scale.
Are there “no timely national fire data”? Try to name another national database with comparable useful detail that is MORE timely.For deaths, you have the death certificate database, with excellent detail, but NFIRS has much more detail, and the death certificate database is even less timely. For losses, the insurance industry databases are more timely, but the part they will share or release is not very detailed. Relative to the ideal, NFIRS has a lot of deficiencies. Relative to any comparable federal database, NFIRS has nothing to apologize for.
NFIRS Version 5.0 has certainly taken longer and had a bumpier road than anyone involved or affected could have wanted or expected. But considering the scope of what Version 5.0 was intended to (and did, finally) accomplish; the fact that NFIRS has always been an underfunded, voluntary system; and the need to mediate between data collectors (fire service), data users (like NFPA, CPSC, and state fire authorities), software vendors, and others—each with competing priorities, a lack of consensus within their own group, and enough clout that they couldn’t be easily overruled or ignored—a fair-minded person would have to at least entertain the possibility that the process played out almost as quickly and as well as one could reasonably expect.
The history of NFIRS software is full of choices between lesser and greater evils. One of the first attempts to develop NFIRS software was by Phil Schaenman of TriData; he reported abandoning the effort when he found that every potential client he contacted had a different, incompatible type of hardware. The fire service had a lot of changes to make to achieve the standardization required to support a national database and vendor network. These changes wouldn’t have happened without the USFA’s leadership and support. Time and again, the USFA has had to serve as the supplier of last resort for NFIRS technology as the price for keeping the fragile—voluntary—coalition of NFIRS participants together through successive upgrades.
It’s not surprising that vendors would have preferred a smoother transition, with fewer demands of quality assurance on them and a quicker retreat from direct provision of software by the USFA, but vendor preferences can’t be the first concern of the USFA. It’s not surprising that the efforts of many states to consolidate software purchases for their fire departments—to achieve consistency, quality, and a better price—have led to a major shake-out in the number of vendors. It is a bit surprising that Manning’s column seemed so concerned about the vendor perspective. We wouldn’t have thought that they were the primary constituents.
For the readers, if you think there are fire data you need in some “boneyard,” contact the NFPA or the USFA, and you’ll find people who know how powerful NFIRS data are and have the skill to use them to support your needs. And, they’ll keep doing so, until or unless misconceptions about NFIRS gather enough force to kill it off. Tax dollars are particularly scarce right now. Recent criticisms of NFIRS have not been accompanied by information about what it has done well or any practical approach to doing it better. If NFIRS collapses or is overly simplified, we could again find ourselves in the same situation we were in prior to its inception.
John R. Hall Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Vice President
Fire Analysis and Research Division
Marty Ahrens
Fire Analysis Specialist
National Fire Protection Association
Counterterrorism: another view
I have attended all the Fire Department Instructors Conferences in Indianapolis. I have been involved in haz mat and technical rescue for the past 10 years. For the past two years, I have been involved in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training and knowledge gathering.
As I read the article “Counterterrorism Response: One View” by Andrew M. Trabanco (May 2003), I felt he left out some key items.
Scenario #1, “The Subway”: Most large cities that have subways also have bus service. Why would you even think of enlarging your hot zone from the subway and street to a nonaffected building and increasing those exposed? Why not decon these people and load them onto buses? It is cheaper to bury a bus than remove a building. You could have buses designated “Male” and “Female” for privacy.
The use of sprinkler heads is making great use of what you have available but should only be used in affected buildings, not adding to the scene.
Scenario #2, “Movie Theater”: Turning off the radios and cell phones is great, but let’s not forget that mobile data transmitters also should be shut down; they work off mobile technology.
Scenario #3, “Pipe Bomb”: Evacuation of school kids is always in the best interest of all involved. We must protect the kids at all costs.
The search of the building by fire and police is not one of the best ideas. Yes, it is up to the authority having jurisdiction, but do we as fire and police actually know the area we are searching? Not likely. This is where schools need to become more aggressive in training the occupants of these building. Teachers, custodians, and cafeteria staff have to know their areas and know what is out of place.
Are the bomb squads in the United States equipped and trained to approach devices with radioactive detection equipment to be sure the device that they are rendering safe is not a dirty bomb?
Scenario #4, “Dirty Bomb”: Some of the more proactive departments have already placed radioactive monitoring equipment on rigs. With the reports of explosions or even building collapse, this equipment is being used while en route to a scene for their protection.
Todd Heier
Firefighter
Fishers (IN) Fire Department
Benefits of NFA
In response to Lieutenant Josh Thompson’s comments in “The Impact of the National Fire Academy” (Roundtable, July 2003), I think he has a skewed view of the National Fire Academy (NFA) and its educational offerings. I also find it hard to accept someone criticizing the NFA if that person has never attended it, especially since Indiana offers NFA State Weekend Programs to all of its firefighters.
I have been lucky enough to attend the NFA six times, and I am currently in the Executive Fire Officer Program. In addition, I come from a department very similar in size to Avon, Indiana (Thompson’s department), and I have seen the numerous benefits that the NFA has brought to my department since the NFA’s inception in the early 1980s.
Most, if not all, of the NFA classes can be adapted to any size department; it is just a matter of making the information work for you. As a matter of fact, in most of the classes I have attended, the majority of the firefighters have been from small to medium-sized departments. There is no way the NFA can make every class pertain to every department.
Thompson also mentions a lack of real-life or scenario-based training. Once again, if he would have attended the NFA, he would be aware of its new multimillion-dollar incident command simulation lab. Also, Thompson must come to realize that learning at the NFA happens not only in the classroom but also by networking with your peers.
We are all in this job together and have to work together and learn together to help save firefighters’ lives. Hopefully, Thompson will take an opportunity to attend the NFA, become educated on its class offerings, and realize how much of a valuable asset it is to our nation’s fire service. Brian P. Kazmierzak
Captain, Training Officer
Clay Fire Territory
South Bend, Indiana
You must call Mayday
“You Must Call Mayday for RIT to Work: Will You?” by Burton Clark, Raul Angulo, and Steven Auch (June 2003) was an excellent article. Too often when we get in trouble we doubt whether to call a Mayday. The parameters listed in the article are excellent and should be preached and practiced at every drill scenario. I am a firm believer in adding a RIT/Mayday component to every drill possible. At the Hampton Roads Marine Firefighting Symposium, we practice RIT during the practical exercises on two of the six days of training. The participants welcome these RIT exercises, and many participants comment to the instructors on how valuable the scenarios are. I will now make sure the Mayday parameters are added to the RIT classroom portion of the symposium.
One additional parameter that should be added and stressed is the following: “whenever the firefighter feels the need to transmit the Mayday.” It is better to have an early Mayday to allow the RIT time to effect the rescue than to delay the RIT by not calling a Mayday. My thanks again to the authors for bringing to light another aspect of the rapid intervention process.
Craig H. Shelley
Fire Protection Advisor
Saudi Aramco
Ras Tanura Division
Editor’s note: In Letters to the Editor (July 2003), Seth Bowie is in no way affiliated with the Hyattsville Volunteer Fire Department in Prince George’s County, Maryland, as he wrote.
