Answers from the ashes
In ”Answers from the Ashes” (Fire Engineering, February 2005), Chief Michael S. Terwilliger referenced the line-of-duty death of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Firefighter Eva Schike. I agree with Terwilliger that there are always lessons to be learned from these tragic events that occur on a regular basis in today’s fire service, but I’m having some heartache with “how” the article was written.
I wish that he had conducted more research on the accident in his attempt to answer the questions so many of us are asking. I’m questioning that he uses only the “CDF Green Sheet” and the “U.S. Forest Service 72-hour report” as references for the accident. The CDF Green Sheet is published on a short time frame; therefore, the information contained is subject to revision as further investigation is conducted and additional information is developed. The final report detailing the accident has yet to be published.
I believe that articles like “Answers from the Ashes” would be more informative and validated if they were written by a person from the agency involved in the incident, preferably one with first-hand information of the incident. Terwilliger makes no mention of either CDF helitack captain from Copter 404. These captains have a tremendous amount of experience and first-hand knowledge of the accident. Why didn’t he attempt to contact these people to become “more informed” on the incident before attempting to give the readers the “answers” to why this accident occurred?
I believe that Fire Engineering is a very informative and helpful resource. However, I’m disappointed that this article attempts to give answers to this tragic event with limited information. I understand that Terwilliger’s intent was not to lay blame on those involved but to learn from their injuries and Schike’s death.
Ryan Winton
Modesto (CA) Fire Department
Former CDF Copter 404 Firefighter
Michael S. Terwilliger responds: When I wrote this article, I understood that some folks close to the incident would be sensitive to the issue, as it is probably the worst thing that can happen to a firefighter and the crew. With that said, I emphasize that I was not trying to do the job that the CDF is going to do, and that is find out what actually happened before and during the event. The Green Sheet is accurate enough to understand the fire environment and the types of tactics they were using. I used that information to discuss general rules of the game that might keep us safe on all wildfires. We owe that to all our fallen firefighters.
Pride and ownership
Thanks to Fire Engineering for Rick Lasky’s “Pride and Ownership” series. Each month I would read this article first.
Todd Moore
Plain Township Fire Department
New Albany, Ohio
Quick haul system for RIT
In Robert Childs’ “RIT Bag” (Real-World RIT, April 2005), photos 4, 5, and 6 illustrate a quick haul system to assist in dragging a victim to safety constructed with a length of rope, an anchor, and some hardware. In the diagrams, the working end of the line is tied to the victim’s harness by straps, runs to the anchor in the direction of the exit, passes through a carabiner or pulley, and then back to the rescuers near the victim. In this arrangement, there is no mechanical advantage in using the quick-haul system. The pulley at the anchor serves only as a change-of-direction pulley. You would have the same effect if you handed the line to personnel outside the exit.
If the positions of the line are reversed, you can achieve a 2:1 mechanical advantage. By tying the working end of the line off at the anchor, running the line through a carabiner or pulley (for less friction) connected to the victim’s harness, and then back to personnel near the anchor-or even outside the structure-the quick-haul system would provide two lines pulling on the load (victim). This arrangement also moves the pulling team away from the victim, possibly to a position of greater safety.
Reed T. Menz, P.E.
Oceanside (NY) Fire Department
Something struck me as technically incorrect in photo 5 (page 32) of Robert Childs’ article. The firefighters pictured are using a haul line attached to a pulley that is anchored on the 36-inch pry bar near the exit door. The article mentions using a haul system to assist in moving a 200-plus- pound firefighter. This alludes to a haul system with a mechanical advantage greater than 1:1.
Here’s my question: Shouldn’t the pulley be on the downed firefighter?
The haul system pictured is a 1:1 haul system with the pulley providing direction change. Placing the pulley on the downed firefighter’s harness would impart a 2:1 mechanical advantage. This would also change the direction of haul, allowing the firefighter outside the structure to do the hauling.
Craig Aumack
EMS Captain
North Stelton Volunteer Fire Company
Piscataway, New Jersey
Robert Childs responds: Looking closely at photo 5, you would notice two pulleys (one-inch pulleys that are harder to see) and that the rope is somewhat thicker to the left than on the right. Attached to the bar are the anchor knot and a directional pulley (perhaps, I should have been more descriptive in the photos). Attached to the downed firefighter is a traveling pulley (a 2:1 MA). Yes, the RIT member is preparing to haul with the downed firefighter and other RIT member. There were many more photos showing variations of the MA. It was decided that these photos were sufficient at the time. For example, we could have made it a 3:1 MA by flipping the system and placing the knot and pulley to the downed firefighter and the anchor, pulley, and haul line at the door-which is partially what you see in photo 6. Photo 6 shows only the anchor point with pulley, not the complete haul system.
What I mentioned in the article was a “quick-haul system” and associated hardware, something that will aid the rescuers “if needed” for a quick and successful removal. How the rescuers apply a “quick-haul system” is their decision based on their action plan when put to the test and constant training. Also, keep in mind that this is another tool that a RIT team has to use “if” conditions allow, should they, God forbid, be put to the test.
Interior attack a lost art?
Recently, a small conference related to “reading smoke” was held in the Central Florida area. I was somewhat alarmed about the things being passed on to our newer generation of firefighters. There seems to be a growing trend of exterior fire attacks. The whole “risk vs. gain” mantra and all of the other risk analysis flow charts are slowly lifting the burden of performing the primary search.
I am no advocate of suicide by interior attack, but I do believe we have an obligation to make every attempt to perform an aggressive primary search. Who else will do it if we don’t? There are numerous stories of firefighters making rescues under extreme conditions that would surely contradict some risk analysis models that the fire service is moving toward. I only hope that if my family members are trapped, and nobody is in the front yard to be their advocate, the “risk takers” are responding.
Shawn Steinert
Lieutenant
Orlando (FL) Fire Department
Building code changes
Regarding the article “The Impact of Building Code Changes on Fire Service Safety” (Richard R. Licht, Fire Commentary, April 2005), I find it hard to believe that firefighters are not represented in the code process. If the author feels that fire or building officials are not getting their voices heard, then petition the model code organizations to increase the seats on the committees for fire or building officials.
As far as fire sprinklers are concerned, I believe it is water that extinguishes most building fires, keeps most incipient fires from becoming free-burning fires, and keeps fires in one building from jumping to another building. Some well-known and very wise contributors to Fire Engineering have stated, “Just put the fire out!” What better way to extinguish or hold the fire in check than with water at the ready?
With all due respect, there is not any “mounting evidence,” as noted in the article, that recent trade-ups in the codes for fire sprinklers are cause for concern. The record very well shows that (1) new buildings burn at the same rate as old buildings and (2) fire deaths are decreasing and fire damage in fire sprinklered buildings is fractional compared to fire buildings without fire sprinklers.
Fire sprinklers supported by adherence to NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2002 edition, will ensure the unblemished 130-plus-year history of automatic fire sprinkler systems will continue.
It’s not an increase in construction materials that is needed; it’s legislation and compliance to that legislation that are needed. That legislation needs to mandate that NFPA 25 be adopted and used, that the inspectors (contractors and authorities having jurisdiction) are certified, and that anyone tampering with a fire sprinkler system be severely prosecuted.
Enforcement of the codes is less expensive than the unnecessary duplication of fire protection systems and overselling of building materials.
Approximately 3,500 people in the United States are dying each year within buildings that are heavily overbalanced to the side of fire and smoke containment and control …. Admittedly, there is occasionally a fire death in a fire sprinklered building; but in every case documented, it [involved] someone … on oxygen who smokes or someone who was doused in gasoline during a homicide (by the way, there was a case in which a college student who was doused in gasoline was saved by fire sprinklers).
Regarding the National Fire Protection Association Report by Dr. John Hall (September 2001), Hall has already clarified his statements and apologized for some of the wording used. In a follow-up report and a letter to the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA) Manager of Codes Kevin Kelly some months later, and published in Fire Engineering, Hall said the terminology that any fire sprinklers or systems “failed” was inappropriate and that the term that should have been used was “Did Not Operate.” “Did Not Operate” would include the following circumstances: Fire sprinklers did not operate because of self-extinguishments, the fire’s not being hot enough, and human intervention (fire extinguisher). A fire sprinkler might not operate for dozens of reasons, none of them because it “failed.”
Regarding smoke, if the sprinkler system extinguishes the fire, that take cares of smoke production. It comes down to this: Fire sprinklers work well …. The reliability of fire sprinklers has been questioned. I’m not saying that every system out there is up to code and inspected, but it easily can be with mandated enforcement. There is hardly a firefighter anywhere who has not seen fire go through “X hour-rated” separations in a matter of minutes. As I noted previously, people die in “rated” structures.
I have been active in the fire service for 31 years, which is the reason I am honored to work in the fire sprinkler industry, specifically for the NFSA. I have seen the difference between life and property conservation many times where fire sprinklers have been present and where they have not. I see the differences more so now that I work for the NFSA. Firefighters assuredly see the results when fire sprinklers are present and the devastation and ruin when they are not ….
Dominick G. Kass, CFPS
Firefighter
Clifton Park, New York
