 ® |
March 2000 |
CHANGE FOR THE BETTER?
By Chief John
Mittendorf
City of Los Angeles Fire Department
Nineteenth-century essayist James Russell Lowell once said, "The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinion." When comparing the modern fire service with that of just 25 years ago, it is readily apparent that changes have been significant; and only the foolish firefighter will ignore them.
There have been sweeping changes in the past quarter-century in almost all areas related to the fire service, including apparatus, communications, staffing levels, operational capabilities, and numerous other factors. Even in the past three years, there have been at least major four areas of change in the fireground that have collectively combined to significantly modify operational considerations and firefighter safety. These four are:
A high percentage of modern buildings use a lightweight form of construction that has reduced the costs of materials and the time necessary to erect a structure. The simple yet effective truss configuration has allowed multiple small members (i.e., 2x3- and 2x4-inch members) to replace larger structural members in spans that can exceed 100 feet. Unfortunately, as the size of a structural member is reduced, fireground time is also reduced. As an example, compare a modern 2x4 truss to an "older" bowstring truss. Although "a truss is a truss," the modern truss uses 2x4's connected by thin metal gussets. The older truss used "rough cut" lumber of 2x10-inch dimension or larger that was connected by steel plates and bolts. Are both of these structural configurations strong? You bet! Will they react differently in a fire? Absolutely! Although the Uniform Building Code addresses strength, it does not address fireground time, which the modern truss has significantly reduced.
Building materials used on the interior of yesterday's residential and commercial structures were commonly comprised of conventional materials (i.e., paper, wool, wood, cotton, and other similar materials). When these materials ignited and burned, they yielded smoke and fire gases that often required temperatures of over 1,000 degrees for ignition. With the advent of petrochemical-based materials (synthetics) commonly used in all modern buildings, the fire service is now faced with materials (i.e., TV's, carpets, furniture, drapes, etc.) that present a different hazard from two perspectives:
Therefore, the modern fireground environment is more capable of burning (or flashing) over in shorter period of time than the fireground environment of yesterday.
Just a few years ago, typical protective equipment used by attack personnel consisted of boots, pants, coat, gloves, SCBA, and helmet. Although this combination had its advantages and disadvantages, it did allow personnel to use their ears and back of their hands to evaluate the level of heat in a fireground environment. This clothing combination also allowed the human body some degree of ventilation through the unprotected portions of the head. By comparison, the typical modern firefighter is protected by a Personal Alarm Device and hood. The hood completes a set of protective equipment that now totally encapsulates the firefighter. To be sure, this has allowed personnel to withstand higher temperatures for a longer period of time, and given them the ability to quickly advance to the seat of a fire. However, these advantages can be easily offset by the ability of the same protective equipment to "mask the conditions" that attack personnel commonly once used to monitor the fireground environment. Additionally, when fully encapsulated, the firefighter's body cannot as easily ventilate itself in a hot-working environment.
Does the fire service experience more or fewer fires today as compared to yesterday? The obvious answer is . . . FEWER! As sprinklers, smoke detectors, and other similar factors have collectively reduced the number of fires, the experience level of personnel has also been reduced. Therefore, when a modern firefighter arrives at a typical one-room fire in a single-family dwelling (which NFPA indicates is 60-70 percent of our fires), the excitement level can be abnormally high, creating an environment that can result in the forgetting of basics, thereby reducing fireground safety and increasing the potential of injury or death. You may be thinking that a lack of experience can be offset with training. Possibly. But let me ask you this: "Has the level of training in your department increased or decreased in the area of fireground operations?"
Now, let's combine the preceding four areas of consideration and summarize their impact (or change) on the modern fireground. Just a
few years ago, in the absence of SCBA and hoods, personnel were taught to stay low, use the oxygen around the water being discharged from a spray nozzle, monitor the environment with the ears and back of hands, and position personnel with a nozzle to the side of the entrance opening when applying water to the seat of a fire. Under these conditions, personnel unknowingly often enjoyed the benefits of a structure that was slow to collapse and an environment (thermal layer) that was also slow to flashover (as compared to the structures and environments of today). However, with progress (change), attack personnel became able to use their modern protective equipment to rapidly advance to the seat of a fire. Unfortunately, this has increased the inherent hazards of the three following fireground considerations:
Therefore, when the firefighter of today enters a fireground environment, it is imperative that appropriate time is set aside to consider the following:
In summary, do not allow your protective equipment, in concert with the increased hostility of the modern fireground environment, to lure you into a false sense of security. As the rate of fireground flashovers and resultant firefighter deaths and injuries are increasing, the modern firefighter should constantly evaluate the fireground environment and use protective equipment as a defensive weapon instead of an offensive weapon. Technically, the advantages of protective equipment should be seen as increasing your window of safety, as opposed to taking you to the seat of the fire in “record time." Practically, you should not use your protective equipment to advance you any farther into a hazardous environment than the firefighter of a few short years ago, but use your protective equipment to increase your window of safety.
Have the modern changes in protective equipment and building construction been beneficial to the modern firefighter? It all depends on your use of the tools and conditions that are commonly encountered that you often take for granted!
(Excerpted from Truck Company Operations by John Mittendorf, published by Penwell Publications/Fire Engineering Books.)
Chief Mittendorf's newest book, Truck Company Operations, can be purchased by clicking here.
© Copyright Firenuggets.com 2000 • Click here for Terms and Conditions of Use
