The White Cover
John D. Wiseman, Jr.
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I have read and reread your editorial of August 1995. While I am not aware of or acquainted with anyone who is advocating “risk-free firefighting,” I do agree that such a goal is probably impossible to attain. However, there should be general agreement that we need to minimize the risks inherent in firefighting. At the same time, I think that there is a realization that this latter goal has not been attained. We are losing firefighters every year, lives that could have been saved. Also, there are far too many injuries.
I like the idea of a blank white cover for Fire Engineering. It would not hurt to start with a clean slate and examine the whole issue of firefighter safety in relation to the twin goals of rescue and extinguishing fires.
You have suggested two ways to begin this reexamination.
1. “Push for standards that would insist that firefighters be physically fit to serve and thereby lower the annual death toll more than all the other standards combined.” In this you have singled out the leading cause of firefighter deaths.
2. “Most important, we must continually emphasize that training is the key that opens the door to firefighting success and safety.” Unlike item 1, you do not offer a specific recommendation that could lower firefighter deaths. Instead of emphasizing more of the same training, your blank cover suggests that what is needed is a complete reexamination of our training programs. This includes a thorough reexamination of the prevailing strategy and tactics that are being taught.
The September 1995 issue of Fire Engineering contained articles by William E. Clark (“Using Water Wisely”) and Keith Royer (“Iowa Rate of Flow Formula for Fire Control”) that can serve as a good beginning for these reexaminations. Both articles explain why the Iowa Rate of Flow Formula is a valid tool for both preplanning and firefighting.
May I suggest a principle to guide a reexamination of current strategy and tactics? There is no one tool that will solve all your firefighting problems. This applies to fog nozzles, solid-stream nozzles–everything and every tactic or strategy. I have learned this principle from Keith Royer, and it is perhaps the most important lesson that I have learned from him.
Applying this principle to the prevailing strategy and tactics, it is dangerous to think that you must always go inside to fight a fire offensively. There is more than one way to fight a fire effectively. Likewise, it is dangerous to think that every time you use a fog nozzle you will “push” fire around. This happens only if too much water is used, not the right amount of water as determined by the Iowa Rate of Flow Formula.
Clearly, the third article, by Andrew A. Fredericks (“Return of the Solid Stream”), violates this principle. His condemnation of the combination attack is certainly unjustified. If the right amount of water is applied at the right place and distributed properly by the combination attack, then this attack is one of the most effective (and safe) attacks that can be made. There is no doubt about this, since it has been demonstrated numerous times during the research conducted at Iowa State University. (See the references at the end of Keith Royer`s article.)
You have promised to provide equal time to those of us who believe that safety is truly the first priority; and with the proper strategy and tactics, there is no conflict between safe and effective firefighting. While all risks cannot be eliminated, with proper strategy and tactics, the risks of firefighting can be reduced to an absolute minimum.
