What is being done to evaluate response to future terrorist attacks?
It is crucial that the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) open a third-party investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster as soon as possible, while evidence is available and recollections from surviving members are fresh. Without a doubt, the results of an “unbiased” study will forever change the way that all fire-rescue agencies do business in the future.
Most fire administrators are still reluctant to discuss the September 11 tragedy, especially while so many of our colleagues are still missing amid the ruins of the WTC. But those who have spoken echo the same sentiment. It’s time for change!
Techniques and equipment that once suited the general need of fire-rescue personnel were of little benefit when New York’s first responders were faced with their most devious, unthinkable enemyterrorism. In light of the disastrous events of September 11, 2001, it is imperative that fire administrators across the country step back collectively and rethink long-standing tactics and SOPs.
Prior to September 11, were this nation’s fire administrators aware of technology that might have empowered fire-rescue personnel to save victimsand themselves? Indeed, billions of dollars are spent each year for conventional firefighting apparatus and equipmentshiny pumpers, TeflonT-coated fire hose, portable radios, and so on. But at the WTC, only a handful of fire apparatus were actually used, and the department’s radio system is reported to have failed early in the incident. Could those funds have been used to purchase more forward-thinking, innovative equipment?
Just ask former FDNY commissioners what they thought of Israel’s MSH, the high-rise rescue device that allows firefighters to ascend to upper floors in seconds. Or talk with inventor Ralph Baker, who 10 years ago was willing to install his own rescue chute on the WTC at no charge. And why has FDNY refused to take delivery of a gift of the world’s tallest aerial ladder?
Some say the WTC disaster was a once-in-a-lifetime event, especially the many thousand of “experts” who voice their opinion on the Internet. Members of this camp also claim that the fire service can never be prepared for every eventuality. But many front-line firefighters disagree and are now asking what fire bosses are doing to prepare for the next disaster. And in America’s fire stations, it isn’t a question of IF but WHEN.
Now that we have seen the worst, will America’s fire-rescue agencies openly embrace new tactics and techniques and put them to use to save lives and protect property?
Louis Peter Angeli
Fire Officer
Kennett Fire Company (Station #24)
Chester County, Pennsylvania
Disagrees with “Call to Action”
Regarding Bill Manning’s “$elling Out the Investigation” (Editor’s Opinion, January 2002), the passion of this caustic diatribe caught my attention, but I was left cold by the vagueness of the accusations leveled at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Manning’s suggestion that the ASCE/FEMA investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is the “official investigation” and that “no one’s checking the evidence for anything” is misleading at best.
In fact, as reported by Structural Engineer magazine (Mercor Media, www.gostructural.com, January 2002), there are several investigations being funded through research grants provided by the National Science Foundation. These investigations include research being done at the University of California at Berkeley on the mechanical and structural properties of the WTC steel affected by heat, fire, and impact, as well as research regarding the performance of WTC fire protection materials and systems being conducted by a University of Maryland professor. These are only two other “official” investigations being performed; there are several more.
Manning’s call for “a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation” would most certainly stifle the most valuable facet of independent scientific investigation; that is the truth that is revealed when multiple investigators consistently arrive at similar conclusions through independent analysis. The “blue ribbon panel” already exists in the multiplicity of investigations and investigators. The ASCE/FEMA study includes participation by the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, as well as several other professionals involved with fire/structure interaction.
I do not believe that Manning’s “half-baked farce” accusation merits the “call to action” he is requesting.
David W. Clark P. E.
Member
ASCE Structural Engineering Institute
Training Captain
Pentz Valley Volunteer Fire Department
Butte Valley, California
The old way is still a good way
I am a newly promoted battalion chief and have 20 years on the job in Chicago. In the past few months, the Chicago Fire Department has had nearly a dozen firefighters burned at fires, half of them seriously. As we all know, firefighting is a dangerous job. These types of injuries are going to happen.
The fire department is always trying to increase the safety of our firefighters. We wear bunker gear (not in Chicago). We wear NomexT hoods. We carry thermal imaging cameras. We carry radios. We have pipes that deliver more gpms at less nozzle pressure. We have rapid intervention team programs in place. All these things are designed to make our job safer. Our job is safer because of these programs and new equipment. However, I am afraid we have forgotten or, in some cases, were never shown some of the things firefighters did before they wore SCBAs and NomexT hoods into fires.
We are at a time now where an entire generation of firefighters has fought fires with protective hoods and SCBAs. We are not doing things firefighters had to do out of necessity before hoods and masks were available. If their ears were burning and they could not breathe, they were on their bellies slithering along down the hallway. They did not stand in doorways, because that would block their only source of fresh air and means of egress. They secured their truckman’s belt to the knob of a door before they forced it open, because if the room flashed over and they had no control of the door, the superheated air would sear their lungs. They used wedges to hold doors open behind them so they could find their way out with little delay if they had to retreat quickly.
Today, we stand or crouch for the most part. We are not as close to the floor as we should be. We stand in doorways unconcerned about fresh air because we are breathing from our SCBAs. We are blocking our means of egress. The truckman’s belt around the doorknob seems to be a lost art. Take a look around the next time you are at a fire and see how many firefighters have wooden wedges on their helmets secured with a rubber strip from an old truck inner tube.
We need all the new equipment and programs in place that we have today to be better, safer firefighters. With all these things, we are able to get closer to the seat of the fire a lot faster. Consequently, we find ourselves in conditions that we can stand because we are nearly or totally encapsulated. However, many times these conditions are a lot closer to deteriorating rapidly (flashover, for example), and we are standing right there when it happens.
Fires today burn undetected longer because of steel doors and energy-efficient windows. Fires burn hotter because of all the plastics and other materials used in our homes today. Make no mistake; fires flash over and backdrafts occur the same way today as they have since the first structure fire. The difference today is that, with our protective gear, we are a lot farther into the building when they occur. With our protective gear and the aggressive nature of a firefighter, we can get in farther and faster than ever before.
The next time you get ready to charge into that fire, think of some of the things the old-timers used to do on the way in. It may better prepare you for that disaster that may be waiting for you at the end of that hallway.
Tim Cronin
Battalion Chief
Chicago (IL) Fire Department
Finding the optimum nozzle setting for interior attack operations
This is in response to Armand F. Guzzi Jr.’s “Fire Streams and the Aggressive Interior Attack” in the February 2002 issue of Fire Engineering.
I am happy to see others admitting that the old standby 30° fog pattern used in the combination attack method should not be used in the interior attack. For years we have wondered why firefighters are constantly receiving steam burns during the interior attack. No wonder! How long has this method of attack been taught to our firefighters? As long as I can remember.
With regard to increasing water flow and reducing the backpressure on attack lines, I have a tale to share that may help others address this situation cheaply. Many years ago, we recognized that the risks of interior firefighting had increased, mainly because of the increased use of plastics and synthetics, resulting in a greater Btu output per pound of material. Our goal was to increase our water flow from our attack lines to meet this increased risk.
We tested a 13/4-inch attack line with a 200-gpm fog nozzle. We found out the same thing as Armand’s article reported: Two firefighters could not handle the line because of the backpressure. This combination of hose and nozzle met our goal of increased water flow, but it would have been a useless interior attack line because of the backpressure.
We solicited the assistance of a representative of a major fog nozzle manufacturing company. At the time, we had limited funding and could not afford to purchase new low-pressure nozzles. He asked if we had any nozzles that had been purchased over the years for ISO purposes. We had two 21/2-inch fog nozzles rated at 250 gpm sitting in a compartment drawing dust. He suggested that we replace the 21/2-inch couplings on the nozzles with 11/2-inch couplings and set the nozzle at 250 gpm but pump it at a reduced nozzle pressure.
After testing, the end result was an increase in our water flow application to 220 gpm at 70 psi of nozzle pressure and a backpressure that allowed two firefighters to handle the line during interior operations. We scratched off the other nozzle settings so that if a mutual-aid company used our attack line, there would be only one nozzle setting, 250 gpm.
John Kriska
Fire Chief
Rock Hill, Missouri
