LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Tips for confined-space operations
I’d like to offer some additional points to Ray Downey’s articles on confined-space rescue in his series, “The Rescue Company,” in the April and May issues of Fire Engineering.
Backup teams are also essential for the rescue effort. These team members must also he appropriately protected as are the rescuers. Qualified basic life support (EMTs) must also be standing by with medical equipment and patient transportation capability.
I’ve found that taking a spare SCBA into the space is wise. It provides a safety factor for the rescuer should the assembly fail or simply run out of air. It can also be placed on the victim to increase survival possibilities during extrication. They’re especially valuable when there is more than one victim and only one can be removed at a time.
I’ve also found that the quickest, easiest, and safest (for the victim) method of removing the victim vertically through a small opening is to quickly tie the ankles together. The victim is then raised feetfirst. This allows a small portion of the body to pass through the opening first.
Anyone who has used a harness assembly affixed to the chest location knows the problems of pulling the victim through the opening shoulders first. This procedure also maintains the airway should the victim vomit or the head tilt forward severely. The victim’s SCBA assembly is more easily removed at the opening from this position.
Gary P. Morris Deputy Chief Phoenix, AZ Fire Department
The value of communication
In your “Editor’s Opinion” in the May issue of Fire Engineering, you address the topic of communication and the fact that it must be a two-way street.
I support your efforts to get all fire services communicating — sharing ideas, training concepts, day-to-day operational successes, and other concerns. In the public’s eye we are one service regardless of the color of our uniforms or apparatus or what our responsibilities are. The last three major wildland fire seasons have shown this to be true. It did not matter if we were wildland or structure oriented; we were expected to perform.
All fire agencies need to do a better job of communicating, internally as well as externally. Your magazine is the tool to encourage this “cross-pollination.” Keep it up.
Grover G. Payne Chief, Fire Management Officer U.S. Forest Service Wenatchee, WA
Some answers, please?
As a firefighter for 36 years, I am writing to ask why we are not hearing more about positive-pressure ventilation or receiving training on it at the state level. I’ve seen it work many times and am a strong believer in it.
Ventilation plays a major part in our fireground operations. Although we all claim to be using it, we still crawl around using one or two air cylinders while trying to find the seat of the fire. Are we getting the best results from the ventilation techniques we’re using?
From what I see and hear, I feel we are doing ourselves a great injustice by continuing to stick to the old and outdated methods of yesterday. It’s time for change!
There’s been much written on positive-pressure ventilation and yet, some refuse to look into its concept. I know that there are two sides to every concept and I feel we, as a firefighter family, should be made aware of it. My concern is for this concept to be taught at the state level. I would enjoy hearing your views, fellow firefighters.
Lieut. Monroe Swartz 5823 13th Street Bradenton, FL 34203
Editor’s reply: See “Random Thoughts” on p. 136.
CFR/ARFF protective clothing—some inaccuracies
I feel that there are some inaccuracies in the article “CFR Responders, Some Thoughts On Protection” in the May issue of Fire Engineering.
The writer asks, “Is the proximity suit the only suitable means of protective clothing for CFR firefighters? Some CFR departments think not.” This statement may lead the reader to assume it’s OK to purchase structural turnout gear in lieu of more expensive proximity suit protection. The NFPA and the FAA address this matter with straightforward minimum standards.
NFPA 403-6.2.1 states that the 1971, 1972, and 1973 codes on protective clothing do not apply to Aircraft Rescue Firefighting (ARFF). The FAA Advisory Circular 130/5210-14 was developed to assist airport management in writing specifications for proximity suits used in aircraft rescue and firefighting operations. They are mandatory for federally funded projects and are in compliance with FAR Part 139. I’ve quoted a lot of standards, but the bottom line is that firefighters at airports shall wrear proximity suits for aircraft operations.
The military services are developing proximity suits with better hoods as well as breathing apparatus that will protect the firefighters from intense heat and toxic gases and provide the dexterity that a firefighter needs when he is working inside aircraft fuselages.
Also, for the readers’ information, there is a new term for Airport Fire Protections: “Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF),” not CFR.
Ernest A. Shores Fire Chief
USFAR Military Fire Department O’Hare International Airport Chicago, Illinois
Caucus institute answers
I’m writing to you regarding two “Letters to the Editor” that appeared in the June issue of Fire Engineering. Both of these letters discussed the potential for the Congressional Fire Services Caucus to be a strong and effective voice for the fire service.
Mr. Bennett strikes to the heart of the matter in pointing out that there is a difference between a caucus and a lobby. As a matter of policy, neither the caucus nor the new Congressional Fire Services Institute takes a position on controversial legislation. Caucus members represent diverse political ideologies and agendas; throwing the weight of the caucus behind any one issue would only serve to disenfranchise some of those members.
What the caucus has organized is an informational assault on members of Congress itself—first, to let them know that there is an identifiable fire service constituency and, second, to keep them apprised of the issues affecting that constituency.
Whether the caucus is successful in its mission to advance fire service issues “up the ladder” of national recognition will depend on the extent to which the fire service takes advantage of this growing support in Congress. Neither the institute nor the caucus proposes to be the premier national fire organization, nor do they pretend to be selfsustaining. Their express purpose is to promote recognition of fire and life safety issues to the ultimate advantage of the fire service and the public.
What the caucus has done, and will continue to do, is raise the awareness of fire and life safety issues on Capitol Hill, provide fire and emergency service groups greater access to federal elected officials, relay the consensus priorities of the fire service to its membership, and enable our lawmakers to knowledgeably consider the ramifications of the fire and emergency service issues.
If the fire service seizes this opportunity to bring a clear, unified agenda before Congress, we will ultimately see a change in the attitude that Washington takes toward fire and life safety issues. The caucus and institute are convincing Washington that fire and life safety issues are not local and state problems, they are national ones.
I would like to thank Chief John J. O’Rourke, F.D.N.Y., and Wayne Bennett of FireSoft for their insightful commentaries that triggered this response.
John McNichol Executive Director Congressional Fire Services Institute Washington. D.C.
