Fire sprinkler “trade-ups” are saving lives
This refers to “Speak Up! Tradeoffs Are Jeopardizing Your Safety on the Fireground” (Jack J. Murphy Jr., Fire Commentary, November 2005). As a “tailboard riding” firefighter of 31 years, I say, “Praise them fire sprinklers.” There are many short “mop-up” operations that could have been “all-nighters” if not for the automatic fire sprinkler systems. (I am a principal member of the NFPA 101 Educational and Day Care Committee and the NFPA 1031 Fire Inspector and Plans Examiner Committee; a NY-state certified code enforcement official; a retired firefighter from Allendale, New Jersey; and a former instructor at the Bergen County Fire Academy in Mahwah, New Jersey.)
I guarantee many firefighters and civilians are walking this planet today because of the modern building codes and the fire sprinkler “trade-ups,” a much more appropriate term.
When the so-called “balanced approach” is blended into the conversation by certain interests, they want you to assume that passive and active fire protection are “equal” or “balanced.” They definitely are not “equal.”
The article lists the famous height and area increases, greater travel distances allowed, lower fire ratings for corridors, and other “trade-ups” as negatives. These trade-ups allow a bigger, better building for the registered architect, the professional engineer, and the owner to work with in the design phase. And the resulting “product” will assuredly be more fire-safe without the threat of conflagration or voluminous smoke production.
Fire sprinklers address a fire where it starts. Smoke production is minimal because of the fast-acting nature of an automatic fire sprinkler system. Automatic fire sprinkler systems have an exemplary track record for holding fires in check and, in many cases, totally extinguishing them. The money it is proposed be wasted to add more material in a building would better be invested in ensuring that NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2002 edition, is enforced and that fire and building officials are properly educated in how to do these inspections.
In the 130 years of fire sprinkler history, there has never been a multiple fatal fire (more than two deaths) in a fully sprinklered building in which the automatic fire sprinkler system is competently designed and installed and properly maintained. Two very important key factors here are competence (only professional designers, fire protection layout technicians, and fire sprinkler contractors should be involved in the installation of the system) and maintenance (adhering to and enforcing NFPA 25 is paramount).
As a side note, we still seem to have about 3,800 fire deaths per year. I’ll bet you that most, if not all, are in nonfire sprinklered buildings!
Truss failure caused by fire was cited in the article. Well, once again, had these structures had fire sprinklers, the fire might not have progressed to these structural members. There are many areas of modern building construction that follow the ideology of “build smarter, not bigger.” We can use less building material and yet have structures that stand up to seismic and various categories of loads never thought possible not so many years ago.
Fire suppression professionals are admittedly needed in the code arenas and should participate on many of the committees. They are the benefactors of unwanted fires and should have a voice. But if their time is limited, is it not better that they spend it in the fire suppression and fire management areas? Aren’t there enough fire code officials and building officials with a fire service background to serve on these building code committees?
The public is always going to provide us with unwanted fires, but you can stop the fire from progressing past the point of origin and way before the threat of fire on any structural components or large smoke production that would be considered hazardous.
New construction is safer than ever. This topic is a “codes arena” topic, and many of our line firefighters (who may have not yet visited the “dark side” of code enforcement) may come away with the wrong message or misunderstanding regarding the issue.
Dominick G. Kass, CFPS
Northeast Regional Manager
National Fire Sprinkler Association
Clifton Park, New York
Not all vital information is learned from texts
This letter is in response to “Education vs. Experience” (January 2006 Roundtable). As I was reading the responses to the question, I realized that many of the responders had degrees. These are the current, new, and up-and-coming leaders of our fire service. I am not saying that education should not be the hallmark of the fire service, but what I am seeing is a “modern” business-type mentality starting to ruin the fire service, not make it better.
I believe that service-based education is a must. The standards put forth by the National Fire Protection Association and IFSTA, as well as local authorities, are the recognized standards in the fire service today. I notice more and more fire service executives “modernizing” managerial techniques to mimic the business sector.
I am not a fire chief. I am a line officer. I lead firefighters. I take my noncollege-educated firefighters down smoky hallways. I push my noncollege-educated firefighters into dark basements. I supervise my noncollege-educated firefighters while they extricate victims. These same firefighters conduct cold water and ice rescues. Our paramedics can work a cardiac arrest as efficiently as many doctors can. They confront problems and take them head on. Not one of them has a college degree.
To insinuate that to be a good fire officer you must have a college education is a slap in the face to every fire officer who has learned the hardest lessons through experience.
Does a college education remind you to punch out a basement window before entering a first-floor fire to make sure the basement is not burning under you? Does a college education tell you to pull the dropped ceiling in a taxpayer at the entry point so the cockloft doesn’t light up behind you?
I know quite a few college-educated firefighters who would get themselves or someone else killed were it not for the average line firefighter backing them up by doing these very things. The books do not teach these things. The hands-on experiences create the instinct and intuition necessary to do our job safely.
I have seen firsthand what the “college educated” executives did during Hurricane Katrina. I witnessed the line firefighters handle that disaster as the college-educated chiefs were too busy setting up their vaunted incident command system.
Education is a must in the fire service, but it needs to be service-oriented education. There are extremely well-designed chief officer courses. These courses as well as others should be the national standards. But nothing will ever replace experience. I will follow a chief into the bowels of hell if I know he has the experience to lead. The fire service does not need a chief who leads from a book. Nor does it need a chief who’s worried about appeasing politicians. The fire service needs experienced leaders for its firefighters. I am a new executive fire officer’s worst nightmare-a 22-year line officer. Enough said.
Russell L. Chapman
Lieutenant
Milford (CT) Fire Department
I was very disappointed in the responses in the “Education vs. Experience” Roundtable. I think many people are missing the point, or rather the problem. What many of these fine fire service professionals fail to remember is that we are hiring people. The best attribute a person has is his attitude; in the sports world, they use the term “coachable.” What does “coachable” mean? I suppose, like many terms we throw around these days, it’s subjective. In my mind, it applies to someone willing to work hard at becoming a better employee, willing to learn and grow, willing to follow the rules even if he opposes them, and willing to develop into a leader. This person may or may not have a degree, or even college credits, but he can be shaped into a team player, someone willing to help facilitate the organization’s move forward and to overcome adversity and be open to meaningful change.
Most of the respondents were correct in that we are not just putting the “wet stuff on the red stuff.” Traditional firefighting is becoming a dying art; we are becoming and need to continue to become more diversified. To accomplish this, we need people willing to develop and adjust as conditions and situations warrant. All too often in today’s fire service, we are hiring people who have no work ethic who have the “me-me-me” mindset. This phenomenon is not restricted to the educated or the uneducated. Having said that, we also have an equal number of dedicated, ambitious, and talented people who are beacons of hope for America’s bravest.
Today’s new recruits are the leaders of tomorrow. The “What’s in it for me?” attitude is not conducive to our ever-changing, dynamic profession. Whereas much of this attitude seems to be shaped by today’s society, some of it is passed down from our “senior” people, those who feel that staying employed for a long time equates with pay raises, stipends, and promotions. Many of these people are the informal leaders of our organizations and are hell-bent on using their powers for evil instead of good. They are the poor hires of years gone by.
In many of the responses I read to January’s question, the word “senior” was presented as if it were a good thing. In some, perhaps many, instances, it is a good thing. Our business has many senior firefighters and fire officers who think progressively, pass down their knowledge, and use their “experience” to make our profession better. In stark contrast to our progressive members, however, we have a large number of senior members who feel we should respond only to fires-no medicals or haz mats, certainly no specialty areas such as confined space or advanced life support engine companies. These are the folks killing our profession and turning it into an occupation instead of a calling.
The sooner we realize our weaknesses as a profession, the sooner we can start to fix them. It begins with hiring high-quality people. Quality people are those who will obtain their education on their journey through the fire service and use it and apply it to the greater good. As a company officer in the fire service, I, along with many others, can help mold a quality person into a quality firefighter, employee, and future fire service leader. And, when the product we put out is service, that should be the bottom line!
Anthony Stowers
Lieutenant/CET
Nashua (NH) Fire Rescue
Primary search is lower on list of first-arriving units
Michael Bricault really hit the nail on the head in “Residential Search and Rescue: Reordering Priorities” (December 2005). As I listen to area departments respond to structure fires, very seldom is there a command order to commence a primary search on arrival of first- or even second-due units. It does seem as though the extinguishment of the fire is more important than a search. Although low-staffing problems can lead to missed tactical procedures, I’m seeing an overall trend of firefighters’ going for the kill and the thrill of knocking down the fire. I’ve mentioned this to a few firefighters. They tend to agree that primary searches have indeed been placed lower on the list of objectives to be accomplished at the outset of a fire.
I serve in one of those “unfortunate departments” currently battling staffing problems. I’m asking all incoming apparatus to report their staffing level-particularly the number of SCBA firefighters onboard so that I can act accordingly. The staffing level of the first-in apparatus is your key indicator of whether the incident will be successful or not. Think about it: All your subsequent decisions will be based on the staffing level of the first-responding apparatus. It’s make or break. In some cases, these low staffing levels create nightmarish scenarios with regard to whether or not the second piece is coming out of your firehouse. Obviously, this calls for automatic responses from area departments, which is the primary reason such arrangements are in place.
Bricault provided some real good insight into this dilemma, and I look forward to future articles from him.
Greg Andersen
Assistant Chief
Allendale (NJ) Volunteer Fire Department
Are any firefighters “highly skilled” in interior firefighting operations?
I have always considered industrial firefighters as firefighters (“Industrial Firefighters Are Firefighters, Too!” Robert E. Zapatka, Fire Commentary, November 2005). Many good industrial firefighters are friends and acquaintances of mine. I trust a number of them and would perform emergency operations with them. I do not want this construed as demeaning to industrial firefighters, but I take issue with the statement “they are highly skilled in interior firefighting.” They do not receive as much training as municipal personnel, and I could not even consider municipal personnel as being highly skilled on interior operations.
Tim Pfannstiel
Seguin, Texas
Check before placing objects on your helmet
Regarding Todd Connors article “Chocking Doors” (Training Notebook, March 2006), I advise all firefighters to consider carefully the potential problems associated with placing chocks (or anything else) on their helmets. The helmet is designed to prevent the transmission of energy from an object’s striking your helmet to your head and brain. Placing anything on the helmet changes its composition and could be problematic. Please contact your safety officer or quartermaster before considering this chock placement.
Stephen J. Heavey
Bellerose, New York
Proposed changes in emission standards pose problems for the fire service
I have supervised our apparatus shop and developed specs for our department for years. I was very pleased to see the issues associated with the 2007 Environmental Protection Agency regulations addressed in Fire Engineering (“Change in Emission Standards Set for 2007,” William C. Peters, February 2006). It should hopefully become an eye opener for many fire departments. Peters’ insight has been a model for putting together proper specifications and apparatus planning. I thank him for that.
For some time now, I’ve been talking to the Office of Emergency Management and the engine manufacturers about the impact of this somewhat drastic change on the fire service. These regulations will throw a proverbial “wrench” into what we took for granted in specifying fire apparatus. There is still no clear-cut determination of how the apparatus will actually perform, as none of these new engines are being tested in fire apparatus.
Our custom cab-over design has a major drawback: Heat rejection could be 20 percent more than at present. This will probably negate the comfortable option of air-conditioned fire apparatus in our New Jersey summers unless more insulation is present, which is not popular because it cuts down on engine or interior cab space.
In addition, and more importantly, operating these engines at high revolutions per minute in a stationary (pump) mode is another concern when it comes to seasonal adequate engine cooling and heat transfer. With temperatures that will be produced at the catalytic converter and exhaust, other components, wiring, hoses, and so on, may “feel the heat” if not properly positioned and insulated. Components like alternators may also be affected, as higher temperatures reduce the efficiency through increased resistance. If it is anything like the gasoline-engine pollution requirements that changed with the automobiles in the early ’70s, I believe we are in for some unpleasant surprises.
I’m not pro “air pollution,” but dependability and performance of our equipment should have been priorities considering the main purpose of our apparatus. One working fire would probably produce more hazardous emissions than the engine would for a very long time. I find it difficult to believe that we’re not exempt from these standards, as the military is. I believe that the fire service doesn’t get the proper government support it needs to help fulfill its mission. The International Association of Fire Chiefs or at least the National Fire Protection Association should have taken this on long ago, especially now that we are part of “homeland security” and, of course, first due in a crisis, be it natural or manmade.
Tom Parks
Captain/Fleet Officer
Cherry Hill (NJ) Fire Department
Attachments and joists
This refers to Gregory Havel’s response to “Hangers on Bar Joist” (Letters to the Editor, February 2006). I was a general superintendent for a general contractor before I became a California firefighter. I believe the response is a bit misleading. It says that both metal and wood joists normally have all their hangers attached to the top chord. In California, no Department of State Architects inspector will let you make attachments to the top chord of the Trus Joist Model TJI wood joist, but they will allow the attachments to the top or bottom chord of the Trus Joist Model TJL wood bar joist. Trus Joist Inc. (a subsidiary of Weyerhaeuser Inc.) is a major supplier of roof trusses across the nation. The Web page http://www.trusjoist.com/PDFFiles/1046.pdf shows all of its attachment and hole designs that are standard considerations for all of its joists.
I do not want firefighters without construction experience to be confused or to think that it is wrong to make attachments to the bottom chord.
Mason Crist
Bakersfield, California
Gregory Havel responds: Suspension of pipes, ducts, and other equipment from other than the top chords of girders and joists usually requires the approval of the design engineer. This is true whether the girders and joists are steel or wood. This approval can be for a specific use at one location, or it can be for all the manufacturer’s products to which that design applies.
In my article in the November 2005 issue (“Lightweight Steel Construction”), I state: “Suspension of pipes, ducts, and other equipment from the bottom chords of girders and joists usually requires the approval of the design engineer.” This article specifically addressed lightweight steel joists and girders.
In my response in the February 2006 Letters to the Editor, I stated: “Most bundles of steel bar joists and wood truss joists delivered to construction sites today will be tagged or labeled ‘Approved for top loading only’…. If they have been designed to have loads supported from the bottom chord, the tag or label will state this and perhaps refer the contractor to specification sheets or shop drawings that detail the location and amount of weight that can be so supported.”
I am acquainted with the Trus Joist booklet referenced by Mason Crist; a copy usually arrives with each shipment of this brand of this product at job sites in Wisconsin. These are the specification sheets to which I referred; they define the approved ways to support loads from the joists, for which the joists were designed. The information in this booklet approves support of loads from both the top and bottom chords of this brand of open web wood joists and from the top chord, bottom chord, and web of TJI wood joists (referred to by the late Francis L. Brannigan and Vincent Dunn as “wooden I-beams”).
Support of a load from a Trus Joist product using one of the methods shown in the Trus Joist booklet is likely to be acceptable to the building inspector, unless the load to be supported exceeds the design of the joist, hanger, or fasteners or unless a state or local building code prohibits that method.
Gregory Havel
Deputy Chief
Burlington (WI) Fire Department
Hydrogen cyanide poisoning
I’ve been reading about hydrogen cyanide poisoning with great interest (“The Breath from Hell, March 2006) and would like to relate the following experience. Approximately one year ago, we responded to a structure fire, balloon frame, wood siding covered by vinyl siding. Since it was “just one room,” we made an aggressive attack and knocked down the fire rather quickly. I was the officer on the engine supplying water. I took my firefighter (left one on the pump) and went around the back to assist a truck crew with ventilation. According to standard operating procedures, all firefighters had donned their SCBAs.
After 20 to 30 minutes, the fire was out and overhaul was started. Being outside, I had taken off my mask. There was little, if any, visible smoke. While walking by the corner of the house (10 to 12 feet away), I noticed inside crews pushing siding off the wall from the inside. As they did this, I was hit by what must have been trapped gases between the two sidings (wood and vinyl). I took a few more steps toward my engine and couldn’t breathe. I fell to my knees, and another officer came over and asked if I was okay. I couldn’t talk. After a few minutes of oxygen, I felt much better. This was the result of one inhalation, 10 to 12 feet from the house, in open air, with a slight breeze blowing. We are not safe anywhere!
Some of the younger firefighters (older ones, too) think I’m overly concerned about safety. They laugh when I take a carbon monoxide meter into a building after a fire to monitor areas. I look forward to a healthful retirement in a few short years. I enjoy reading Fire Engineering and urge all of the firefighters who work with me to do the same. Thanks for helping to bring this chemical poison problem to light.
Charles A. McGorray
Captain
Decatur (IL) Fire Department
