Draft NIOSH Report for the Charleston 9 LODD is posted

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Here is a link to the draft version of the NIOSH LODD report regarding the Super Store Fire in Charleston, South Carolina that killed 9 city firefighters after fire conditions deteriated rapidly, trapping the firefighters.

This is a very hard report to read based on the emtions conencted with it and the technical nature of some of the report. It sheads alot of light upon the incident.

LINK: http://static.wciv.com/niosh.pdf

Found on the FirefighterCloseCalls website:

http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com/fullstory.php?65339

http://firefighterclosecalls.com/

Edited May 9, 2008 by bvfdjc316

[johnvv 20]

The NIOSH Draft Report for the 9 Line of duty deaths that occurred in Charleston has been released. For those interested, this Draft Report containes the facts of the incident, and the reccommendations for change will be released at a later date. As I always say, the only thing worse than a Firefighter fatality, is not learning from one when they occur.

The link is: http://static.wciv.com/niosh.pdf

[SteveOFD 176]

I just finished reading this draft report and it is sad. Sad that in this day FD's are still using 2 1/2" hose for Supply Line, and 1 1/2" hose for Attack Line.

Read the report to see how, as much as we complain about how we do things, other areas of the country are farther behind than us.

It is sad.

[Danger 160]

Tragic.

For everyone out there who swears by ISO...You can take your class one dept with your 1" rubber booster "attack" lines and keep it, I'd rather be a part of a class 10 department that offers hoods, 5" supply and 2.5" attack.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

If you read the Unoffical Charleston Fire Department website, it only lists one engine built in 2007 by Pierce, and there are several images of the niehboring mutual aid departments researching LDH with the city fire department. Also, it shows all city firefighters training on 20 year old donated LDH.

All of the engines in the city fire department have pre-connected booster lines on them.

Link to website: http://charlestonscfire.com/

[helicopper 1,050]

Tragic.

For everyone out there who swears by ISO...You can take your class one dept with your 1" rubber booster "attack" lines and keep it, I'd rather be a part of a class 10 department that offers hoods, 5" supply and 2.5" attack.

Danger, can you elaborate for those not as well informed as yourself? I understand the obvious about 1" booster lines but what does a community's ISO rating have to do with that?

[MoFire390 118]

wow!!! so much detail about what happened.

Its hard to believe that the owner of the property sold it to the City of Charleston for $11.5 million. I saw that article a few weeks ago was very shocked that someone could be that greedy and wont money for a site where 9 Firefighters lost their lives.

[Danger 160]

Danger, can you elaborate for those not as well informed as yourself? I understand the obvious about 1" booster lines but what does a community's ISO rating have to do with that?

ISO standards include water supply, staffing, etc. My point is that is that if you can use booster lines and 2.5" supply hose and be a class one, then I'm not really impressed by that credential.

I'm very new at this pump operator stuff, but I can not even fathom laying in to a fire of that size (that late) with 2.5". I would have an impending doom feeling in my stomach.

[antiquefirelt 994]

ISO standards include water supply, staffing, etc. My point is that is that if you can use booster lines and 2.5" supply hose and be a class one, then I'm not really impressed by that credential.

I'm very new at this pump operator stuff, but I can not even fathom laying in to a fire of that size (that late) with 2.5". I would have an impending doom feeling in my stomach.

I have to agree that ISO is not an accurate measure of the Fire Department's ability to extinguish fires. For the puirpose of education here's a little more on ISO:

ISO seems to have been developed as such and used by insurance companies to set fire insurance premiums, but this opens up a whole host of questions.

The range of ratings is between 1 and 10. A class one is the best and 10 is given for areas with no organized FD. Most of the numbers are "banded" together for the purpose of setting premiums. So often the premiums won't change between a 1 or a 2, 3,4 and 5 or 6, 7 and 8. (This might be different in different parts of the country)

The rating is based on apparatus, manpower, training, dispatch systems, and water supply. There are lots of details in each part and some items are different in different areas.

I mean no disrespect to the working brothers in Charleston, but the ISO Class 1 Rating there proves you can be quite F***ed and still be rated at the top. Given the rest of the lies and half truths told by the Chief and the Mayor, I'd be surprised if the Class 1 rating was gained by telling the whole truth.

[Bnechis 3,961]

ISO standards include water supply, staffing, etc. My point is that is that if you can use booster lines and 2.5" supply hose and be a class one, then I'm not really impressed by that credential.

I'm very new at this pump operator stuff, but I can not even fathom laying in to a fire of that size (that late) with 2.5". I would have an impending doom feeling in my stomach.

One of the biggest problems with the ISO system is that it only looks at certain items. You can have a booster line for minor brush fires, but if your dept is still in the 1970's an uses them on interior fires ISO does not know that.

In the 1970's most depts used 2 1/2" supply, Some of the biggest Depts in the Country still use 3 or 3 1/2"

The ISO equipment list is based on NFPA 1901 (which is a minimum standard...you can/should do better), but what makes members question it is they use the 1980 edition (which for equipment has not changed drimatically, but there are a few dumb things on it). Why the 1980 edition......Because the ISO rating has to be improved by the Insurance Commisioner in every state. If they updated the standard every time NFPA changed they would have to then get the new listed approved by each state dept of insurance.

Instead, hey have come up with a list of alternativies, i.e. It says a truck co, must carry a toarch, they will credit that or a spreader/cutter system.

I'm not overly impressed with ISO..........But they are the only rating that comes with an economic benefit for FD's that improve themselves.

About 10 years ago there was a research paper that came out of the chief executive officer program at the NFA that showed a coralation. The better your rating the lower your fire injury & fatality rate, so there is something to it.

Of greater importance: If you are not impressed with a department with a good rating, what does that say about the majority of departments that have shitty ratings?

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm not overly impressed with ISO..........But they are the only rating that comes with an economic benefit for FD's that improve themselves.

That fact can pay for improvements in the department and I have seen it prevent reductions in personnel and equipment.

Developers and other finance types do look at this. If you look at communities with good rating, not only does the FD make a point of it, but the City's Dept of Development will wave it around like a banner.

While ISO's rating is slow to modernize, it has been around for over 100 years. I found a review of my dept. from 1920 and it was interesting to see it had a vets report of the health of our hourses. Today they require spare rigs, then they required spare horses.

[SteveOFD 176]

Here is the link to ISO's Public Protectection Classification program.

[Danger 160]

Of greater importance: If you are not impressed with a department with a good rating, what does that say about the majority of departments that have shitty ratings?

What I was trying to express is what antiquefirelt said to a T. You can paint class one all over your rigs but it doesn't necessarily mean you're doing everything right.

What happened in Charleston could feasibly happen anywhere. I'm not putting that fire or those poor guys on trial.

[antiquefirelt 994]

If you are not impressed with a department with a good rating, what does that say about the majority of departments that have shitty ratings?

I agree the issue is with taking the ISO rating for what it is, not a mark that the FD is perfect. That being said, it would seem the Charleston thing is an anomaly given the time, funding and effort a FD must spend to achieve a Class 1 Rating. There are some top notch Class 1 FD's out there. Of course their are some great FD's with Class 8 or 8 rating too. But this kind of thing makes you question the system, I know there is a movement in the insurance industry to not use ISO, this seems to fuel their arguments.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I know there is a movement in the insurance industry to not use ISO, this seems to fuel their arguments.

That movement is at least 20 years old, last I had heard (over 7 yrs ago) about 4 states allowed insurance companies to use there own rating system. Good or bad that ment that it was still the primary rating system in 46 states. Allstate tried to use their own system in one of those states (cant remember which) after 4 yrs they found they had lost $$ and went back to ISO.

The only reason for an insurance company to not use ISO is the thought that it can save money, in part by not paying ISO for its rating service and in part because it had come up with another way to do the rating. The problem is the ratings are in part based on 100 yrs of actuarial tables, that are hard to argue with because with a large enough statistical base, it is correct. This is also how a dept can have a reat rating, but not be doing it "right", they are a statisitcal anomaly.

[Bnechis 3,961]

What happened in Charleston could feasibly happen anywhere. I'm not putting that fire or those poor guys on trial.

Yes it could. I would not put those members on trial either....but the leadership has a lot to answer for.