Congratulations to Jerry Knapp, Tim Pillsworth, and Sean P. White on their excellent article “Nozzle Tests Prove Fireground Realities” (February 2003), which examines in superb detail the inappropriate use of fog streams in interior attack.
It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as a guest instructor in various aspects of engine company operations at fire departments and training academies across the country, including the Rockland County (NY) Fire Training Center. This subject comes up all the time when discussing interior operations, usually in the context of the smooth bore vs. the fog nozzle debate. A recent meeting I attended illustrates the pervasiveness of the problem.
I was asked to discuss the operation of a particular nozzle with a small volunteer department in New England. The nozzle resembles a traditional fog nozzle at first glance but in fact has a central smooth bore delivering a solid stream controlled by the bail and a fog pattern controlled by a twist shutoff, rotating the bumper on the pattern sleeve.
“That won’t work for us,” was the consensus, “because we preset our nozzles to a narrow fog pattern for interior attack—about 30 degrees.”
“Why do you do that?” I asked.
“We’ve always done it that way,” was the predictable response.
“I understand,” I replied, “but that answers the question WHEN or HOW LONG. The question I asked was WHY?”
Still, the answer was, “We’ve always done it that way.”
“Let’s look at that SOP in terms of pros and cons,” I suggested. “I’ll give you a few reasons against, and you give me a few reasons for, okay?”
My reasons were the following.
1. It reduces the reach of your stream.
2. It reduces the impact or penetration of your stream.
3. It reduces your visibility around your stream.
4. It entrains air (oxygen) into your stream.
5. It increases the likelihood of upsetting the thermal balance in the space and of producing steam burns.
“Okay,” I said. “Your turn.” There were no responses. One firefighter remarked that using a nozzle like the one we were discussing would mean retraining their members on basic interior attack procedures. I suggested that they might want to revisit their SOPs regardless of the nozzle they use. No one in that room could defend that behavior beyond the argument, “It’s just the way we do it.”
Thanks again to the authors for an excellent article. We’re beating the same drum.
Donald McD. Chambers
Antrim, New Hampshire
Code enforcement and public education: worth the hassle?
Too often during a career, judgment and decisions draw the ire of those with whom you are interacting. For those involved with safety and fire prevention, condemnation and threatening types of remarks are unfortunately proof of effective performance. Too many times I have second-guessed myself in the aftermath of being confronted.
My first boss was a federal fire chief, who said to me, “You can ride the back step of a fire truck, make a grab, and be a hero; but through fire prevention, you’ll never know how many lives you saved because you cannot measure life loss that didn’t occur, but you’ll save many more lives.” Sometimes I wish I had ridden the back step for a career; I continue to volunteer since my first fire in 1969. Otherwise, I have spent my time since 1973 involved with fire and building codes, OSHA regulations, and other safety standards.
An understanding of fire and safety history helps the user of codes and standards better understand and apply these documents in the protection of people and property. Many of the problems associated with past fires have been prevented through the continual improvement of codes and standards. A rational enforcement of the regulations can provide a win-win situation for the occupancy owner and life safety. At times, trying to educate people as to the reasons for your judgment can be beneficial, but too often people are not interested in why, and enforcement is the only approach. If you study the fires of the past century in comparison with changes in fire codes and standards—i.e., NFPA 101, Life Safety Code—you will discover that code requirements change to address the historical facts, and in time those problems diminish.
In personal reflection, my superior was the only individual allowed back in an occupancy after the owner complained because I found that the automatic sprinkler system in a linen chute was a 1/4-inch copper tube with nail holes punched in it and a water valve that a staff member would have to turn on to allow water to flow after opening the Class B linen chute fire door. During a safety class of 150 people, a mid-level supervisor stood to tell me off for my lack of concern for patients in the hospital over the holidays because I did not allow cut Christmas trees and greens throughout the facility.
Storage space may be a problem in many occupancies; in health care, it can be horrendous. There have been times when you had to turn sideways to pass between corridor (exit access) obstructions; staff and management are “in your face” for continually trying to rectify this problem. Then there was the time when egress to a public way—and access for the fire department—was going to be obstructed by a building addition. Seven exits discharged from the building into an area enclosed by the building and an embankment cutaway. An inclined drive provided access to a public way. The drive also enabled fire apparatus placement for ladder access to the multiple wings on the building’s “C” side. The project would include a set of stairs (approximately 20 steps) to allow egress from the enclosed courtyard. An early morning fire during inclement weather that necessitates vertical evacuation of patients to the building exterior would further challenge staff and rescuers trying to move the patients up the steps. As well, fire department access would be compromised. Attempting to dissuade this design resulted in another “in-my-face moment.” Interior finish, furnishings, sprinkler systems, and fire-rated construction are among the other subjects that can result in less than favorable dialogue.
While there may be many life-loss incidents that come to mind, four are in the forefront. In 1942, one week before the Coconut Grove fire in which there were 491 fatalities, the fire inspector signed his report stating that exits and conditions were acceptable and adequate. A disco in Port Chester, New York, sustained a fire in 1974 in which 24 died, many of them trampled in a pile at the base of the stairwell serving as the main entrance to the club’s lower-level dance area. People hesitated to leave when directed until smoke became visible within the room, and then they sought to leave by way of their entry instead of by other exits. In February 2003, 22 people died trying to leave through a single accessible exit in a Chicago nightclub after security discharged an irritant to break up a fight. At this time, answers are being sought to the many questions regarding pyrotechnics, interior finish, decorations, and other matters related to life safety in the consequential loss of 99 lives and 187 injuries at The Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, also in February 2003.
At times, people are seeking to cut corners, keep projects on schedule, and maintain cost savings and do not want to hear what they know needs to be done. We may be asked to be amenable or to compromise our integrity. When you have doubts or begin to second-guess your judgments and face animosity or adversarial encounters, remember why you are enforcing the codes and standards designed to protect the public from fire and other hazards and providing public education on fire safety and fire procedure. We must stay the course in our vigilance and endure the hassle. In some respects, history repeats itself; in other respects, the hassles have reduced the frequency of history’s recurrence.
Craig H. Kampmier
Swansea, Massachusetts
Tactical advantage
The January 2003 issue of Fire Engineering provides the fire service with opportunities to learn, review, and critique real-life fireground operations that were either successes or failures in the areas of incident command, strategy, and tactics.
The back cover of the magazine shows Firefighter Susie Fawcett being burned while operating as the firefighter on a ladder pipe, an incident that I’m sure was critiqued by the Tempe (AZ) Fire Department so that the events at this incident would never happen again. It is with much relief that Firefighter Fawcett recovered and is back to work and that her fellow firefighters identified a deteriorating situation and took action that prevented it from becoming worse.
The back cover describes the incident: “We were over six miles away from this but we could see the flames as we left the station.” “Fire was consuming six to eight apartment buildings under construction.” Firefighter Fawcett is shown on the extended ladder pipe with its fog nozzle set to the 307 pattern. The results of the chosen strategy and tactics? Firefighter Fawcett’s emergency bail from the ladder, apparently burned, with 10 weeks off from work.
I’d like to critique this incident in the spirit of using it as a lesson to prevent departments from making similar mistakes in size-up, strategy, and implementation of tactics.
The fire was seen from six miles away. Can we suggest that this fire is a loser that we know is going to be defensive?
There were six to eight buildings under construction. It appears to be a nighttime fire. Was there a life hazard? It would appear that in terms of occupants, the answer is “No.” In terms of firefighters, the answer is “Yes.”
Is it safe to say that buildings on fire while under construction are major losers? With protection of exposures, the main strategy is surround and drown the fire with master streams.
The question needs to be asked, Why put a firefighter on an extended ladder pipe? This never should have been a tactical option. The fire service should be very familiar with unstaffed ladder pipe operations, with tactical observers dictating nozzle placement.
I cringe whenever I see ladder trucks with preconnected fog nozzles. Such nozzles are ineffective for fire attack and should be considered only for exposure protection, haz-mat incidents, and other events at which fire attack is the last consideration.
Realize that fog nozzle streams are blown away by air currents (natural wind and the thermal currents of the fire) and significantly evaporated by the fire’s radiant and convected heat. Additionally, fog streams simply do not have the penetration and distance capability of solid streams and the concentrated water pattern to be effective for fire attack.
The fire service needs to understand building design and construction, the potential impact of fire on the building, and the appropriate tactical response if we are to be successful in our mission to protect lives and save property.
Tom Murray
Battalion Chief, Division of Training
San Mateo (CA) Fire Department
