LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
NFPA 1500
Following are comments to consider in the NFPA 1500 rule-making process: “Companies shall assemble crews of at least four members before conducting interior attack on a working structural fire” raises questions more than it gives guidance. Do the four include the pump operator, the hydrant person, and the fireground commander, thus leaving only one person pulling the hose, operating the nozzle, and performing search and rescue? Do the four include the persons necessary for the backup line? Are we saying that each operating interior attack line must have four people? Are we trying to say that each engine must respond with 10 people?
As written, the proposed standard is saying that there is as much risk in a 1,200-square-foot, one-family brick ranch home as there is in a threeor four-level, multifamily structure, a high-rise office building, or a paint store. Where did most of the serious injuries occur?
The possible bottom line is that there never will be any more interior attacks! While waiting for the second truck to arrive, the fire advances to where two lines are required, and now we must wait for the third and fourth companies. By now it is gone, so just use your deck gun! Oh well, we won’t need the 10-member cabs anymore.
The intent may be good, but it is not realistic with today’s resources and certainly will increase the liability’ of all types of departments and possibly eradicate many small departments, whether paid or volunteer. Sixty-seven percent of our budget is salary and employee benefits. Doubling that is 134 percent, and suddenly we are broke (we are a subscription service department). When that happens, the community we serve has no fire protection and no fire prevention, and homeowners cannot even purchase fire insurance policies! Thus they cannot even get bank loans on their homes. The economic impact of the proposal is far-reaching and in my opinion deserves much more careful, prudent study. From my 40 years of experience, two persons per each interior attack line is adequate and safe in any single-family dwelling. Our SOP states this and does require that a backup line be at the point of entry and manned.
H. Robert McCammon
Chief
Blount County Fire Protection District
Maryville, Tennessee
Rural America burning
1 really enjoyed the article “Rural America Burning” (October 1992). My particular area of interest is very close to author Steve Meyer’s. I’ve been “campaigning” since 1984 for greater fire protection for livestock facilities. My emphasis—and articles I’ve written—has been about fire safety for horse barns. After 30 + years in the horse industry, I’ve seen the problems firsthand. Ohio is among the top 10 in horse population in the United States, so a wide variety of equine facilities—ranging from small backyard bams to large training and/or breeding facilities—exist here.
In horse barns, particularly, the greatest fire hazard involves the misuse of electricity, ranging from improper wiring to untended immersion water heaters. Like Chief Meyer, I’m often frustrated by the lack of information available to livestock managers and the fire service. Except for racetracks, building and fire codes for livestock facilities are woefully inadequate. In many areas, there are no codes. Then, of course, we can’t inspect private property unless invited to do so.
I agree that involving government and industry is essential; and further, I feel we must encourage and educate farmers, horsemen, and others with an interest to demand access to information and to insist, on the local level, that the fire department having jurisdiction make inspections of livestock and agricultural structures.
Again, thanks for showing me I’m not alone.
Laurie Loveman
Lieutenant Highland Hills (OH) Fire Department
Educating the community
As I catch up with my reading, I found your June 1992 issue to have two extremely important short articles that easily might be overlooked. The Volunteers Corner by Gene Carlson, “Firefighters: Community’s Information Source,” points out the tremendous possibilities for every firefighter to be a public educator in his/her community. In Austria, which has one of the lowest fire death rates per capita in the world, there are approximately 200,000 volunteer firefighters in a nation of seven million. About one in 10 adult males is associated with the fire service! They perform two enormously important functions in addition to firefighting: They spread the ethic of fire safety—the notion that one is expected to act safely and prevent fires—and they also serve as an enormous political force for code improvements and other fire safety-related issues. Carlson suggested specific information that every firefighter should disseminate to friends and family that will save lives. I urge readers who may not have noted this article to go back and take it seriously.
The article by Michael Donahue, “Effective Anti-Arson Programs,” is also of great Importance and on an overlooked topic. Arson can be reduced by a number of proactive means, including educating the community, and not just by going out and catching the bad guys (which isn’t a bad idea, either). Many communities spend their entire arson effort on investigation and apprehension rather than on prevention and community support.
Philip S. Schaenman
President
TriData
Arlington, Virginia
Management and tactics
Congratulations! The September issue was one of the best from any periodical 1 have ever read. There were threearticles that combine-d to make it rate so highly on my list of re-quired reading for any serious manager of a firedepartment. They were Mary Jane Dittmar’s “Ownership of the Fire Service: the Privatization Issue,” Bruce Edwards’ “Critical Flow Rate,” and Robin Paulsgrove’s “The Quality Service Challenge.”
As an instructor up to and including college level courses in management and tactics, I found many answers there for a vast majority of the problems facing us today. We must learn to accept the fact that we are a business and that many principles apply. Many have neglected this; and when they suffer, the blame goes everywhere but to themselves. Recently we have seen large corporations buckle under the pressure of competition. If we think we are immune, we are setting ourselves up for the big fall. When the public looks to us as a necessary and productive service that is highly respected, we can get the manning levels and budgets we so direly need; until then, it’s beg, borrow, and steal the crumbs left by those more visible and efficient.
When I look at the apparatus purchases, all I see is bigger and bigger. If more officers understood the critical flow rate applications and how large amounts of fire can be knocked down by small volumes applied at a high rate, we would be static or downsizing apparatus. It is an extremely difficult concept to grasp, but ask anyone who has used or witnessed a blitz attack, and they will agree it works.
We all need more articles like those. Keep up the good work.
Allen B. Clark, Jr.
Fire Service Consultant
Salina, Pennsylvania
Infant safety in aircraft
As a federal firefighter, I would like to respond to the recent Federal Aviation Administration ruling on the use of infant restraint systems on passenger aircraft. Over the past several months, several hundred hours of testimony were given in favor of using infant restraint systems on passenger aircraft by organizations representing airline personnel, who are crew members.
The majority of the airlines rejected and lobbied against the ruling, which would require airlines to give up a seat to an infant traveling in the restraint system. The airlines claim that they would have to charge a fare at current market value. Only one airline I know of allows infants in a restraint system to occupy a seat at no additional cost.
The Federal Aviation Administration ruled that if the measure were passed, it would force families to pay for an additional ticket and/or force the families to drive instead of fly. Also in the ruling, the airlines would be required to make the seat available at a reduced rate at current market value. The airlines also responded that they would lose money on this ruling.
Both the airline industry and the Federal Aviation Administration are not focusing on the prime issue. That is the health and safety of an infant. In all 50 states, there are laws that require the use of infant restraint systems from the time infants leave the hospital after birth until they reach an age where they can occupy a seat and be restrained with seat belts. The laws vary from state to state, but they are strictly enforced.
At the present time, all airlines allow infants to fly for free if they occupy the lap of a fare-paying passenger. What restraint does that infant have, other than the arms of a caring person? If that aircraft made a crash landing, the infant would be thrown around the cabin of the aircraft like a rubber ball. What do you think the infant’s chances of survival would be? It is time the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration work toward providing a means of safe travel for infants instead of trying to save the almighty dollar.
Paul M. Linville
Federal Firefighter
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Help Mexico fire service
The American fire service is fortunate, for our economy allows us the freedom to experiment; but our neighbors south of the border are truly less fortunate. They have nothing new at all. In these areas, volunteers and paid personnel go to fires without boots, fire coats, or helmets. Thus I am opening a training facility for Acapulco as well as other parts of Mexico. This is part of a three-year pilot program of sponsorship to Acapulco’s emergency needs.
This is an opportunity to benefit the needy. Give your brother firefighters from Mexico what you no longer need—your expertise and your soonto-be-outdated equipment.
George Rabiala
Captain
Chicago (IL) Fire Department
