FIRE Act a hollow “victory”
This was supposed to be it. Finally a bill (the Fire Investment Response En-hancement Act) that would recognize the importance of the fire service and authorize fire departments, the true fire experts, to obtain real resources that we need to actually make a difference. Five billion dollars over the next five years. One billion dollars per year is, by the way, a paltry 14.3 percent of the $7 billion in federal aid that goes annually to our law enforcement cousins. Still, the money would make a major improvement. At last, our elected officials will demonstrate a measure of respect for our calling.
Well, of course, the $5 billion has become $400 million over two years, plus another $30 million for volunteers in the forestry service (the rural areas); $30 million for burn research; $10 million for the study of, training in, and treating of hepatitis C; a federal engineering study of radio frequencies; and a higher priority for local departments to receive excess defense department property (loosening of some restrictions).
The above numbers are based on the shaky assumption that “authorized” funds will actually be forthcoming. The language of an authorization act provides directions to the federal government for spending money. It does not appropriate the money. Members of Congress must secure the funding in an existing or additional appropriations bill. This is not exactly a mere formality. The issue was left hanging by the 106th Congress; passage by the 107th Congress remains very iffy.
Four hundred plus million dollars (if we ever get it) is not to be sneezed at, of course; and I suppose we should be thankful for whatever bone that is thrown us. But it is clear that the politicians don’t have that much respect for us after all.
Is the fire service community expressing disappointment at the prospect of receiving less than 10 percent of what we asked for-much of it to be doled out by our friends at the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Aside from some very mild criticism, virtually everybody is calling this a major victory for the fire service. The politicians-both the publicly elected variety and those within the fire service-are falling over themselves to take credit for it.
In a press release, Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), who introduced the original version of the FIRE Act to the House in March 1999, had this to say: “This is truly my proudest day as a member of Congress, because today we are fulfilling our obligation to those who make the ultimate commitment to us every single day. Today signifies the day we stopped paying lip service to our firefighters at holiday parades-without putting our money where our mouth is the rest of the year. I have said repeatedly that the fire services have been the forgotten part of the public safety equation. That ends with this legislation.”
Congressman (and volunteer firefighter) Curt Weldon (R-PA) also released a statement saying, “This legislation marks a new and well-earned commitment from the federal government to our nation’s firefighters. Never before has the federal government taken steps even approaching this magnitude to aid the fire service. It is about time that America’s heroes receive the assistance they so desperately need.”
Other press releases from such prestigious fire service organizations as the International Association of Fire Chiefs voice similar reactions. “This is a landmark victory for ICHIEFS and the fire service,” said ICHIEFS President Mike Brown. “We have labored two years to shepherd this bill through the Congress. ICHIEFS successfully fought off attempts to insert language into the bill at the last minute that would have run the grant program through state government-level administrators and would have resulted in unacceptable dissolution of available funds authorized under the program. ICHIEFS maintained a vigilance over this legislation that allowed compromise without sacrificing the vital interest of the fire service.”
A victory for the fire service? If so, it is a costly one, as some of our elected representatives and some leaders of fire service organizations seemed to turn on each other at a time when we should have been presenting a united front. I guess one might call it, at best, a hollow victory, or perhaps even a Pyrrhic one. “Another such victory,” said King Pyrrhus of Epirus of his heavy losses in defeating the Romans at the battle of Asculum in 279 BC, “and I shall be ruined.”
Charles R. Angione
Bangor, Pennsylvania
Deputy Chief (Ret.)
Plainfield (NJ) Fire Division
“No valid reason” for headfirst ladder slide
Although the headfirst ladder slide has become the latest rage, there is absolutely no valid reason to train in or suggest use of this so-called self-rescue technique. The only reason so-called fire service professionals advocate this subject is for sensational reasons. It is sensational. Advocacy of the headfirst ladder slide will get speaking engagements, but it is frightening to think that fire service people really propose that this technique be used in training or at an actual incident. There are a multitude of reasons for not teaching this method of rescue, but I cannot think of one valid reason for teaching it. If the firefighter is in a situation that calls for an exotic escape such as this, he will effect the escape based on basic and continued training.
There are far too numerous variables involved in relying on the headfirst ladder slide for a successful rescue. In training, conditions can be set up to ideal standards; in an actual fire situation, successful use of this technique is left to a very remote chance. Conditions must be set up to exact specifications. Where is the ladder? How does the ladder get thrown to the proper window in a timely manner? At what floor is the firefighter? Is he above the reach of a portable ladder? Where is the fire? Is the ladder in the proper window? What is the ladder angle? What is the weather? Is the ladder tip placed in the window, below the window, in the center, or to the side? Is the firefighter on the roof? Is he in the cellar? What are the obstructions-i.e., parked cars, fences, exposure buildings? Is there a fire escape? Are there bars? Are any shards of glass in the window?
To train firefighters in the headfirst ladder slide is to train them to injure, paralyze, or kill themselves. There are fire departments in the country that today, in the year 2000, still send firefighters who have not been sufficiently trained in basic fire skills into burning buildings, yet we advocate training in exotic, dangerous, and sensational procedures such as the headfirst ladder slide. This is preposterous.
I am disgusted that Fire Engineering printed the narrative re the headfirst ladder slide, thus giving validity to this procedure. Advocating this procedure is a disservice to the firefighter on the street.
John J. Gelinas
Recruit Firefighter Training Coordinator Massachusetts Firefighting Academy
Deputy Chief
Cambridge (MA) Fire Department
Metro Pack may not work in all cases
In their article “The Metro Hose Pack: Urbanizing a Wildland Success” (September 2000), John Davidson and Bob Williams describe the Metro Pack as consisting of two packs of 13/4-inch hose. Each pack contains a 100-foot length of thermoplastic, double-jacketed hose equipped with a combination breakaway, low-pressure nozzle (150 gpm at 50 psi). This shutoff has a built-in 15/16-inch tip capable of flowing 182 gpm at 50 psi. Before adopting this particular standpipe pack, I would urge readers to consider the following:
- Previous editions of NFPA 14, Standard for Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems, required only 65 psi residual at the topmost outlet while flowing 250 gpm from each of the two topmost hose connections. Thousands of buildings were constructed under this standard. Unfortunately, the hose pack described would incur approximately 120 psi friction loss when flowing 180 gpm through 200 feet of 13/4-inch hose.
- If you believe that you can use the fire department connection to provide the pressure necessary to supply 180 gpm through 200 feet of 13/4-inch hose with a 15/16-inch tip, consider the following:
NFPA 14 requires pressure-regulating devices to limit static pressures to 175 psi at hose connections without preconnected hoses and to limit residual pressure to 100 psi at hose connections with preconnected lines.
Fire department connections are often inoperative due to vandalism and poor maintenance. In addition, they are often inaccessible because of fences, shrubbery, new construction, and so on.
Falling glass may sever supply lines feeding the fire department connections.
NFPA 14 prohibits system pressures above 350 psi (the maximum safe pressure). Therefore, if 170 psi is used to overcome friction loss and provide adequate nozzle pressure, only 180 psi is available to compensate for head pressure. This limits the hose pack described to buildings less than 360 feet in height (if we allow 0.5 psi/ft.).
Even if the metro pack will perform as advertised, will 180 gpm extinguish the fire? Using the NFPA fire flow (length 2 width)/3, we would expect this line to be able to extinguish only about 550 square feet of fire. The Fire Department of New York found it necessary to use two 21/2-inch lines flowing 250 gpm each to extinguish a fire in a single apartment on the 28th floor at 1 Lincoln Plaza in 1997.
- The combination nozzle carried on the Metro Pack can easily become clogged by the scale and trash typically found in standpipe systems.
In summary, while the Metro Pack may work under the specific conditions found in Sacramento, California, I would urge other fire departments to carefully study the issue prior to adopting this system. Many fire departments will find that carrying three separate sections of 21/2-inch hose equipped with a 11/8-inch solid bore tip (and a 1/2-inch overhaul tip carried separately for low-pressure situations) is the only hose configuration that allows them to develop adequate fire flows given the hydraulic constraints inherent in a pre-1993 NFPA 14 standpipe system. For further information, I suggest the following reading:
- “Return of the Solid Stream,” Fire Engineering, September 1995, 44-50.
- “Standpipe System Operations: Engine Company Basics,” Fire Engineering, February 1996, 33-42.
- “The 21/2-Inch Handline,” Fire Engineering, December 1996, 36-49.
- “Standpipe System Operations: The Standpipe Kit,” Fire Engineering, February 1999, 71-86.
Lance C. Peeples
Firefighter
St. Charles, Missouri
“New Wave” water fog tactics
Paul Grimwood’s article “‘New Wave’ 3-D Water Fog Tactics: A Response to Direct Attack Advocates” (Fire Engineering, October 2000) was very interesting but not necessarily innovative insofar as U.S. firefighting is concerned. Many of our Southern California firefighters have been exposed to and trained in this type of fire combat since about 1990 when Swede Survival Systems (SSS Inc.) went into business. In fact, the Santa Ana College Basic Fire Academy has been actively training our entry-level firefighters, as well as our local agency firefighters, in these techniques since 1991. It was at that time that we purchased one of the “flashover” simulators built by SSS Inc. That purchase has probably been one of the most beneficial additions to our training arsenal. I am not disagreeing with Grimwood as to the use of these tactics. I just did not want him to think that we were as far behind cutting-edge firefighting here in the colonies as he might think.
Richard J. Keller
Deputy Chief
Santa Ana (CA) College
Fire Technology/Basic Fire Academy
We have been using the water fog tactics described in Grimwood’s article as part of the instructional program provided with our container systems since 1991. The original “Train the Trainer” class for our cadre of instructors was provided by a team from the Swedish Rescue Services Agency in Fall 1990.
With more than 80 systems now operating in the United States and Canada, our best estimate is that about 75,000 U.S. and Canadian firefighters are familiar with the water fog tactics as they are applied in the Swede Survival Systems.
The North American fire services have been and continue to be progressive in recognizing the benefits of this form of “live fire” training. The United States was the first country, outside of Sweden, to embrace these concepts.
John Hunter
Swede Survival Systems, Inc.
Encinitas, California
I would like to make some additional observations regarding straight bore vs. fog stream and Grimwood’s 3-D water fog tactics. Again, we have a contributor who appears to be saying this is the solution to everything. I must take issue with the intent to sell a method instead of looking at it as an additional tool.
I have done a great amount of study on the concept presented, including using the technique on an active fire. Like every other type of stream and application, it certainly does work. But not in every situation. The same is true for straight bore application and the other various methods of fog application. Class A foam and compressed air foam systems are yet other options that work. And, it is important for the fire service to realize there is no one solution to the varied situations we encounter.
Also, almost no one seems to be addressing the issue that any method must be accompanied by the appropriate ventilation techniques. Tom Brennan has been one of the few making this point in his Random Thoughts column.
On page 90 of the article, Grimwood states at the bottom of paragraph 2: “The results are a safe and comfortable working environment for firefighters and an effectively maintained thermal balance.” I trust he meant to say thermal imbalance. This is one of the concepts I continually try to instill in my students because too many in the fire service do not understand it or the implications. You never want to be in a fire compartment when the room is brought into thermal balance. There are other places in this article where the author references thermal balance when the term should have been thermal imbalance. Hopefully, this was not a lack of understanding but only a misprint.
I am greatly concerned that too many of our firefighters today have a lack of knowledge in regard to proper stream management; the appropriate gpm properly applied as dictated by the fire, not the firefighter; and a clear understanding of the implications of improper or no ventilation. This may be an issue for one of your contributors to tackle. If we do not start doing a better job teaching these skills, the result is going to be the continuation of needless fire injuries and fatalities.
Rick Bolly
Lieutenant
Marion County Fire-Rescue
Ocala, Florida
Bill Manning responds: It is not a misprint.
Education is not the only recruitment factor
Reference is made to “Promoting Higher Education in the Fire Service,” by William C. Rivenbark, Ph.D., and George H. McCall (September 2000). This is a very important matter, and it should be addressed; however, let’s first look at the fire service in real terms.
Some departments can offer wages and benefits similar to those of other “professions”; therefore, they are able to compete with applicants in other fields. Many departments, however, do not offer adequate compensation, most of them through no fault of their own. Thus, they are not able to attract those who have spent many years in institutions of higher learning.
Even though criminal justice programs have existed for a quarter of a century, degrees still are not required for law enforcement (police) positions in localities other than the big cities. Statistics show that departments in many “preferred” cities that advertise their openings and are used to getting hundreds of applicants now only get a trickle of candidates. The reason for this is that the economy is good. Who wants to put on a badge and a gun and deal with the “lower” side of life day in and day out when they can make more money doing many other much “cleaner” jobs?
To attract the professionals with higher education, the fire service organization must show that it is a professional organization that deserves these individuals as employees. To be respected as a professional, you must look and act like one at all times.
Two problems have arisen in the police community that would have much more serious consequences if they occurred in the fire service. The first is that those with degrees have been well trained to analyze, analyze, analyze. Once out of the classroom and in the streets, many freeze when in a pressured situation that requires making split-second decisions (called “analysis paralysis”).
Second, employees who have spent considerable amounts of money and time acquiring higher learning feel they deserve regular promotions. These individuals become stagnant in departments that have little or no turnover. After the department’s training them at great expense, these employees move on to other departments or private business to get the rewards they feel they need. The fire service has even less turnover than the police community.
The answer for the fire service is not to hire or promote based on higher education alone. The selection process should take into consideration such things as the maturity of the individual and the individual’s capacity to communicate clearly, perform satisfactorily in high-pressure situations, think independently, and use common sense. We should highly emphasize in-house and field training.
Employees who want to pursue a degree should be helped in every way possible. If we place applicants at the bottom of the hiring pile just because they do not already have degrees, we might be making a grave mistake.
There is no proof that higher education is the critical component when it comes to managing the complexities of the fire service. What the fire service needs to do to be successful in the coming years is to get back to basics, step outside of our internal view of the matter, and see if the services we offer are of the type and quality we ourselves would want as “customers.” We must act and look professional on and off the job. We must be serious about what we do, whether it be suppression, public education, fire code enforcement, or any other area in which we provide a service. We must clearly show our citizens that we are members of the fire department because we want to be and that we enjoy what we do. We must always be aware of the fact that because we are regarded as heroes, we must carry ourselves with respect, which we must continuously work to maintain.
Let’s take a long look at the overall picture before we start making artificial requirements that may just make for a glossy cover. Let’s make sure not only that the fire service we leave to the next generation has a cover that is true to the course but that the entire book we wrote is a best seller.
Jeff Allen
Fire Marshal
Irmo (SC) Fire District
