They died for what?
After reading “They Died for What?” (Editor’s Opinion, July 2000), several things come to mind in regard to governing agencies’ responsibilities relative to requirements as well as their response to the tragedies that have occurred. After some “politically correct incidents,” for example, politicians were lining up before the last engine company had cleared the scene of the Seton Hall University dorm fire in New Jersey this winter. They called for state regulations requiring fully sprinklered college dorm buildings and funding on the state level to accomplish this task.
On the other hand, although everyone from the president of the United States to the mayor of Worcester, Massachusetts, attended the public memorial for our fallen comrades in Worcester, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no “fast-track” legislation to address any of the problems that led to this tragedy. If nothing else, the Worcester tragedy should have provided the motivation to drive home passage of the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act on the national scene. Personally, I wonder what I will see first, Social Security when I reach 65 (a good 25 years from now) or passage of this legislation.
Although I give credit to the State of New Jersey for providing each fire department in the state with thermal imaging cameras and for mandating that all departments use the incident management system, the Seton Hall regulations show that a quick-acting government really can be misguided. I would venture to say that more occupants have died in residential fires in one year in the state than in all the college dorm fires nationwide, EVER! Would it not have been more productive to use the funding to provide for more staffing and training for the fire service or, better, for building codes and regulations for vacant structures and funding for financially strapped municipalities to deal with this type of problem instead of for sprinklers in all New Jersey college dorm facilities?
It is ironic that the same issue of Fire Engineering reported that firefighter fatalities in 1999 reached a 10-year high. In addition to that, 12 brothers gave their lives in April and May of this year alone. Again, there was no national or local outcry for changes or, more importantly, funding that would address firefighter safety.
I think that some of the “on-the-street” concerns of fire service members are born not so much out of members’ appearing to be indifferent to those in need of rescue but out of the frustration from the realization that this is a dangerous profession that at times gets little more than lip service from elected representatives.
David J. Volk
Lieutenant/Training Officer
Perth Amboy (NJ) Fire Department
As I came upon “They Died for What?” I immediately turned back to the cover to check the date. I thought, “Didn’t I read this a year ago, five years ago, 10 years ago?”
Yes, those firefighters who died were part of the family. As a retired firefighter, I still feel as though I have lost one of my own when I learn about the loss of a firefighter. Have you ever said, “but for the grace of God ellipse.”?
Haven’t we learned anything in the past 100 years? The fire service has advanced in almost every way, except in reducing fire service deaths. I know we can list the reasons and make out plenty of reports, but the one report that must have been filed most often is the one that states, “It was an abandoned building.”
Until the city fathers are shown again and again-not only by their own fire departments but by all the fire organizations in this country and, yes, other countries-that something must be done about these abandoned buildings, will anything be done? Maybe we should form an organization that can centralize these reports. Then a summary should be delivered to local, city, state, and federal officials and distributed to all media organizations. Firefighters’ deaths because of abandoned buildings should not, must not, and cannot continue.
James S. Cizek
Lieutenant (Retired)
Tucson, Arizona
Mask confidence
I compliment Anthony Avillo and Mike Nasta on their article “Lessons Learned from Mask Confidence Training” (Fire Engineering, August 2000). The guidelines they presented may come across to some as being trivial or common knowledge, but it is a known fact that many times the lessons we think we know go right out the window when we actually need them.
The only true way to learn something like mask confidence is to go out and do it, and I think their article definitely stresses the basics of what every firefighter-paid or volunteer-should practice. This is something that can be done right in the fire station with a blacked-out mask. It is important to get over that fear of not knowing what is ahead of you because you can’t see. I have seen numerous cases in which firefighters doffed their facepieces because panic set in when they were in a situation they couldn’t “control” visually.
With the advent of thermal imaging cameras, some are ignoring the skills of search and getting out alive because of the false sense of security the camera can give a firefighter. The camera is one of the greatest tools to come along in the fire service, but it should not be a substitute for what we need to know and practice. Thanks to Fire Engineering for publishing such an important article.
Christopher Malanga
East Farmingdale Volunteer Fire Company
Suffolk County, New York
I am a little concerned about a photograph that appeared on page 80 of the August issue of Fire Engineering, in the article “Lessons Learned from Mask Confidence Training.” The photograph shows a firefighter on his side grasping a handful of wire. This in my term is VOODOO.
We practice this maneuver by using the back of the hand to push up wire. The swim method would be to point your hand forward and at an angle, such as if there were a wedge between your hand and the floor, and push forward with your hand, palm down, touching the floor. This will cause any wires on the floor to come up from the floor to the back side of your hand. Then you can push your hand upward and remove any obstacles. If any wires were on the floor or in the way, they now should be safely on the backside of your hand and forearm, thus minimizing the chance for electrocution. The firefighter can then proceed forward safely and avoid entanglement and electrocution.
Keep up the excellent training articles and a great publication.
Jeffery S. Buck
Second Assistant Chief/Training Officer
Granby Center, New York
Anthony Avillo responds: Grasping the wires as shown in the photograph on page 80 is dangerous. While the body position is correct, the hand position should be such that the wires are swept out of the way using the back of the hand. This will minimize the possibility of electric-related injuries. Wires should never be grasped for any reason.
The $5 billion dream
Regarding “The $5 Billion Dream” (Editor’s Opinion, August 2000), did I miss something, or has Fire Engineering moved from Saddle Brook to Whoville?
Roger Melchior
NFAAA Board Member
Green Bay, Wisconsin
I was knocked out by the “The $5 Billion Dream.” Rarely is the cause of sprinklers promoted in such a profound way. And I got a laugh at the same time. Keep up the most excellent writing!
I’d also like to mention that there isn’t anything from a training standpoint that I look forward to more than the FDIC. I’ve made four in a row now and look forward to many more.
Mark A. Turvey
Captain/Assistant Training Officer
Friendswood (TX) Volunteer Fire Department
NFAAA Texas State Coordinator
Nice hat! Are they going to make those in leather, or just polycarbonate? In all seriousness, Bill Manning’s poetic editorial was on point, as usual. Well done.
Doug Clark
EMT-I
Nobleboro, Maine
“Any qualified group could apply” for fire funds under FIRE Bill
We read with great interest and dismay Bill Manning’s “Getting Legs” (Editor’s Opinion, May 2000). His comments about the National SAFE KIDS Campaign regarding the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act (S. 1941) are completely inaccurate and misrepresent not only the intent of the bill but also its actual language.
Senate Bill 1941 specifically states “the Director shall use not less than 10% of the funds made available to make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, state, local, or community organizations (emphasis added) that are recognized for their experience and expertise with respect to fire prevention or fire safety programs and activities, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention programs.”
It is true that the National SAFE KIDS Campaign falls into this category of possible fund recipients, but there are numerous other organizations as well that fit into this description. It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that SAFE KIDS and only SAFE KIDS “would, over the next five years, siphon off $500 million in fire department monies.” This is a completely false statement, and we request an immediate correction and clarification regarding the requirements of the bill and our position on the bill. Senate Bill 1941, if passed, would establish a competitive grant process where any qualified group or groups could apply for funds-not just the National SAFE KIDS Campaign. It would then be up to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and/or the U.S. Fire Administration to determine who should be the recipients of the prevention funds.
Fires and burns remain the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths among children ages 14 and under. Unfortunately, each year more than 650 children ages 14 and under die in residential fires, and nearly 47,000 children ages 14 and under are injured by fire in the home. Children, especially those ages five and under, are at the greatest risk from home fire-related death and injury. This is why the Campaign proudly supports this prevention provision to S. 1941.
Obviously, preventing a fire in the first place is the very best way to reduce these tragic numbers and also protect the brave men and woman who every day put their lives on the line to protect us. To demonstrate our strong support and admiration of our nation’s firefighters, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign would also like to note that it has aggressively supported the House Companion Bill (H.R. 1168) that has no money set aside for prevention initiatives. The Campaign and it effective grassroots SAFE KIDS Coalition network across the country unequivocally and adamantly support both versions of the bill and look forward to its eventual passage by Congress.
Heather Paul, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
Washington, D.C.
Value-driven organizations
I just read Mark Wallace’s article “Creating a Value-Driven Organization” (August 2000). Wow, what a refreshing article! A triple AMEN for Wallace’s insight into what powers an organization’s success. I hope everyone makes a serious attempt to understand what he delineates in the article. Value-driven organizations are our only hope for successfully meeting the challenges that face the fire service today.
As a fire chief and public sector consultant, I have preached Mission, Vision, and “Core Organizational Values” for more than a decade. In the organizations with which I work, major transformation takes place when the whole organization discovers, delineates, and communicates its core values. Wallace clearly states in the article, “The organization’s common values are desired behaviors that everyone is committed to and will not violate.” I can’t emphasize enough the truth and wisdom in that statement. Most public sector managers don’t understand that they can be strong leaders, have tremendous skills, and possess high levels of support but can fail miserably by trying to drag an organization “against the grain.” The organization’s values must be understood and communicated clearly. Goals and objectives must be aligned with organizational values, as any attempt to pull, push, drag, regulate, or otherwise manipulate the organization against its values will end in disaster.
I applaud Mark Wallace for his writings, and I applaud Fire Engineering for its insight in publishing his article. I highly recommend Wallace’s book, Fire Department Strategic Planning: Creating Future Excellence. I find it to be the most accurate published description of strategic planning that really works out in the field of reality. Public sector leaders will find that, with the exception of a few slightly complex chapters, Wallace’s book is a breath of fresh air when comparing his concepts with the overpriced, boilerplate strategic plan consulting currently offered in the marketplace.
Just in case you’re wondering, this isn’t a paid advertisement for Wallace. Actually, I’ve never met him, but I have been applying principles very similar to those in the article and in his book for over a decade, and I believe it would be wise for all leaders in the public sector to take to heart the tenets expounded on in both.
Michael B. Sherman
Chief
Newberg (OR) Fire Department
Ladder for that unexpected emergency escape
I commend Captain Raul A. Angulo for his Fire Commentary in the August 2000 issue and for your highlight of his theme: “If we change our thought process to put up ladders for the unexpected firefighter bailout, just maybe that ladder will be there for you.”
I was trained as an auxiliary firefighter by the Detroit Fire Department in 1953 and have served as a rehab volunteer in Silicon Valley, California, for more than 30 years. Naturally, I’ve observed much action, but the one scene that is indelibly engraved in my head occurred at the Midwest Wiping Cloth building fire in Detroit on March 12, 1987. It was covered, beginning on page 26, in the June 1987 issue of Fire Engineering.
The fire began as a small pile of rags and rubbish but flashed over; the resulting five-alarm fire cost the lives of three firefighters. One firefighter was hanging out of a window; heat and flames were about to overwhelm him. An alert “fire engine operator,” as they’re called in Detroit, spotted the situation, opened up with a deck gun, and held the fire at bay until a ladder was placed and the firefighter escaped. I wasn’t there, but I saw a picture of the scene, and, as I said above, I’ll never forget it. I thought of it again when I read Captain Angulo’s article. I hope his suggestions become standard operating procedures throughout the fire service.
Leonard W. Williams, CPA
Past President
International Fire Buff Associates
Sunnyvale, California
Rooftop LPG tank? Nonsense!
Reference is made to Francis L. Brannigan’s the Ol’ Professor in the August 2000 issue and the reference to proposed changes to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, which would allow rooftop installations of LPG tanks in certain situations. Evidently, the proposed change is aimed at making the code more “international.”
I remember the first rooftop LPG tank I saw in Mexico 20 years ago and how stupid an idea I thought it was at the time. I am amazed that the idea is even getting review time by the NFPA. Yes, a rooftop installation may save valuable space (which was not an issue in the instance I cited), and, yes, it is unlikely that a rooftop tank would be struck by a vehicle. Beyond those considerations, what could possibly be the motivation to consider the practice seriously? Placing a container of heavier-than-air, flammable, compressed gas on the roof of a building is nonsense plain and simple. Common tasks like maintenance, inspection, and filling will be more difficult, the fire danger will be increased, and the hazards to firefighters will be multiplied.
While on the topic of firefighter safety, the NFPA is now also considering adoption of 17l0, which, in many cases, would require the doubling-at least-of the cost of operating a fire department. Or, its adoption could place a noncompliant department at risk of litigation, ostensibly for the sake of setting a standard of performance and safety that is recognized as the best possible regardless of cost. This is a very noble cause, but not terribly realistic in my view. Some communities and locales clearly need more suppression resources than others. Yet, there are countless fire departments that have very commendable fire loss and employee safety records that do not come close to the station location or staffing requirements of NFPA 1710 because the risk and demand load is lower (read: fire is prevented and contained by built-in and behavorial methods). But if it is indeed the mission of the NFPA to set standards that reflect the highest possible measures of safety, then what is up with the same body (albeit different committee) even entertaining the notion of allowing LPG tanks on the roofs of buildings? And, if setting an international standard is truly the trend, then which nations should be picked as an example to set the standard of fire department organization and operations? Many countries have a better firefighter safety record that the United States and better fire loss records as well. Remarkably, those countries have organizational patterns that don’t even resemble the pattern proposed in NFPA 1710. It would seem that there is a disconnect here unless the connection is that the consensus process is being driven by special interests.
I agree wholeheartedly with Brannigan. Some codes and standards contain bunk brought to the table by committee members with a particular agenda that may have very little to do with fire safety and everything to do with the sponsor who sent them to the table. Mark Twain said it best: “Two things you never want to see made are laws and sausages.”
Douglas R. VanPelt
Chief
Corvallis (OR) Fire Department
Firefighter succumbs to cancer; leaves wife and two-year-old triplets
We recently lost our brother Mark W. Faughn to cancer within three weeks of his diagnosis. He leaves behind his wife Sherrie and two-year-old triplets, Keaton, Conner, and Emily, who are “miracle” babies in that they were born after two in vitro fertilizations.
We have started a trust fund for the triplets. At the present time, it appears that Sherrie Faughn will not receive any federal or state death benefits.
Contributions may be sent to Faughn Triplet Trust, c/o Edward D. Jones Investments, 506 Market Street, Metropolis, IL 62960.
For additional information, contact the Metropolis Fire Department at (618) 524-2121.
Bobby Williams
Engineer
Metropolis (IL) Fire Department
