LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Sprinklered buildings: a permanent monument to five brave firefighters
I read every word in every article about the five Hackensack, N.J. firefighters who died “in the line” on July 1. A firefighter myself for 14 years, I served briefly with a department that borders Hackensack, so for me the grief was brought much closer to home.
Some of what I read was ghastly, insensitive, and sensational. To learn that two of the men were trapped, conscious, for up to 20 minutes before their air ran out and then suffocated was something I didn’t really need to know. To see their last desperate appeal, which was made over a portable radio, in three-inch headlines of the Sunday paper was disgusting.
Much of what I read showed the confusion that typically goes through people’s minds just after such a tragedy. The mayor said he couldn’t figure out why firemen would be sent into a building where there were no lives at stake. Of course, that’s why he’s the mayor and not the fire chief. As firefighters, we know that “There’s no one in the building” is a lot like “I didn’t know the gun was loaded.” The collapse happened about 20 minutes after the firefighters’ arrival, hardly allowing enough time to have assured the safe evacuation of 110 employees and whatever number of customers may have been in the showroom. The fact is, until firefighters search every possible hiding space, we always believe someone may be inside.
Secondly, as firefighters, we are expected to save property as well as lives. If we stayed outside of every burning building, we wouldn’t be worth having around. These firefighters were trying to extinguish the fire, the best way to prevent injuries and save property. Their actions were within the normal parameters of our job. In fact, history has shown that firefighters are more likely to be injured in full-scale, exterior attacks than they are when they go inside, find the seat of the fire, and “put the wet stuff on the red stuff.” You can second-guess the chief, who may have known about the collapse dangers of that particular type of construction, but as one 30-year fire service veteran said to me, “I don’t fight fires I wasn’t at.” There is no place for replay officials in our game.
There weren’t, however, any questions raised in any of the articles about how the fire got to the size it was, or about the delayed alarm. No one said, “I can’t understand why there weren’t any sprinklers in the building.” I think that if five people died in a car accident, the first question would be “Why weren’t they wearing seat belts?” Why don’t people react as quickly when any fire consumes a building of that size?
Maybe people don’t realize that sprinklers are at least as effective in preventing fire deaths (to firefighters and civilians) as seatbelts are in preventing fatal auto accidents. According to the National Fire Protection Association, there hasn’t been a single fire where three or more people died in any building protected by a working sprinkler system. Never! Having a sprinkler system is a lot like having a fireman in each room, w ith a charged hoseline in one hand and a radio in the other. With a sprinkler system, there are no delayed alarms, no gradual buildup of fire. The savings in insurance premiums usually pays for the installation in a few years.
After I spent one weekend at a fire training academy, my four-year-old daughter asked me what I learned in “fireman school.” I told her we studied sprinkler systems; she asked me what they were. I told her that sprinklers are water pipes in a building that open up when there’s a fire and put the fire out. “Oh,” she said. “Then the firemen don’t have to go.” I was about to explain that it isn’t really that simple, but then I realized, it is that simple. If more buildings were sprinklered, there would be fewer serious fires.
One story I read really choked me up. It mentioned that, as the last body was being removed from the rubble, there was a brief shower, followed by a rainbow that arched over the building. According to the Bible, the rainbow is God’s promise that “never again” would there be a flood that devastates the earth. To me, this rainbow meant “never again” should five brave men lose their lives in a burning building.
I’m sure that future stories will tell about a monument to be erected in memory of our fallen comrades, Hackensack’s protectors. Why don’t we erect a monument that really means something? Why don’t we enact mandatory sprinkler ordinances in each community? Those areas that have done so have had excellent results. Most only enacted the laws after a tragedy of their own. Well, New Jersey has had its share of tragedy, and if we have to wait for a greater one to prompt us to action, then the next deaths will be on our collective conscience.
My four-year-old has it figured out. It’s about time our communities did the same thing.
RICHARD J. CHRIST
Firefighter, Aldelphia Fire Company Howell Township, New Jersey
With truss fires, risks outweigh benefits
Once again firefighters have suffered tragedy while battling a fire in truss construction, this time in Hackensack, New Jersey. What are we going to do with this incident? Are we going to spread the usual platitudes about duty, dangerous job, and going inside to get the fire because that is where the fire is? Or will we finally learn and change our tactics in truss construction?
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
It is so true that trusses “are only designed to defy gravity.” They are lightweight, with no inherent safety margin, and when exposed to fire, they fail rapidly. The time of failure isn’t predictable, but we can expect them to fail early in our efforts to “save” the building.
A recent fire in a fully sprinklered warehouse illustrates my point. The fire occurred in pallets of foam furniture padding and was controlled by the discharge of 18 sprinkler heads. Two of the bar joists (a form of truss) supporting the roof showed evidence of deformation when the smoke cleared. They require replacement along with a large section of roof deck. There is no doubt in my mind that without the sprinklers, the roof would have been on our heads within minutes of our initial entry.
We must always be aware of the benefit to be gained compared with the risk taken. When a truss is directly exposed to fire, the risks far outweigh any benefit. It is time we stopped accepting the loss of firefighters as a part of the job. This means less aggressive tactics are called for in some situations. Certainly when a truss roof is involved with fire, it is time to “wait for the fire to burn to the outside to fight the fire from the outside.”
ROBERT M. DERRIT, BATTALION CHIEF
Director of Training Cleveland Fire Department
A clarification on balloon construction
I believe that there’s an error in an article in your September issue, “Victorian: Beauty or the Beast?” on page 63.
The diagram to the left on that page is true balloon construction, but the one on the right is, too. The way the floor joists are designed, fire can go around the double plate and continue a vertical extension.
Platform (or western) construction occurs when the wall stud and other members are completely separated from the floor below it. At the beginning of construction, a complete platform is constructed of supporting beams, headers, and floor joists, upon which usually plywood is nailed and glued to make a platform. All exterior and interior walls are then built on top of this platform. This type of construction continues throughout all floors to the roof, thereby “sealing” each floor.
The problems arise when we start cutting holes for duct, piping, and electrical work and not sealing them, thus causing vertical and horizontal fire spread.
This information can be obtained in the IFSTA Building Construction manual along with the NFPA Handbook, 16th edition. It’s hoped that this information will clear up any misunderstanding of this type construction in the article.
ROBERT LEUCI, SR.
Private
City of Nashua Fire Department Nashua, New Hampshire
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Calendar not a part of the “sex sell”
In the August issue of your publication, there was a letter followed by an editorial response regarding advertisement of various products for the fire service. Unfortunately, some of these companies have regressed to using the same techniques as most other retailers—“sex sells.” I, too, am opposed to the utilization of non-fire service related “models” when used in such an exploitive fashion.
My concern is about the reference to the “Hotshots” calendar. If you and Mr. Oltersdorf were truly perceptive, you would have noticed a vast difference between the advertisements mentioned above and the calendar.
First, it sells nothing but itself—a color-coded shift calendar endorsed by certain manufacturers and suppliers. Second, these are all female firefighters, who have more to lose than their male counterparts that might have been offended. Third, much care was taken to display professionalism within the ranks of the fire service while at the same time highlighting the many truly attractive women that serve so proudly. These ladies had the support of their departments and chiefs, and applications have been pouring in for future editions of the calendar.
One would think that this sets “Hotshots” apart from, in your words, cheap and lewd advertising gimmicks. The calendar has been widely accepted, and fortunately, charities have benefitted from the proceeds.
In closing, as a female, I will infringe upon my editorial rights and say that those who complained about the calendar are probably some of the same people who buy clothing, cars, cologne, sporting goods, and various other products that are advertised by beautiful women.
One last item. Fire Engineering most graciously accepted my check for an ad in the classified section for —you guessed it —the calendars.
DIANE JOPLING Hotshots Owner
