Video: NFPA 1710 - The Industry Standard for Career Fire Departments

[x635 4,066]

Pretty cool video.

 

 

[nfd2004 750]

THANK YOU for posting this. I think it is something that is very easy to follow, as well as how it presents it's very important points. I assure you I intend to share this with many others as well.

[LayTheLine 108]

The video is very well put together and easy to follow. I agree with the first two points about manning, but not the third. To dispatch 43 personnel to a reported fire in any building above 7 stories is just not realistic. If a call comes in for a fire in Room 802 in a 12 story hotel, or a call comes in for a fire in the laundry room on the 7th floor of the same hotel, it is unrealistic to expect to dispatch 43 firefighters. It may be scientifically the best thing to do, but think about how many career departments could roll 43 firefighters out the door on the report of a structure fire? In the tri-state area I would venture to say that only a handful of departments have 43 people on a shift. Just think about it, if an average city has 7 engines with 4 on a piece, 3 ladders with 4 on a piece, 1 rescue with 4 and 1 chief with 2,  it would mean you would need to dispatch 6 engines, 3 ladders, 1 rescue and the chief to that reported fire. (and they'd still be 1 person short!). Basically you would leave 1 engine to cover the city. If there was a CO call going on along with a medical assist call, you wouldn't have the manpower to respond to the fire and you would have nothing left to cover the city.

 

There are many cities, take New Rochelle, White Plains, or Mt. Vernon that don't even have 43 on a shift. If a report of a fire came in at a high rise in White Plains, they would have to dispatch the whole on-duty shift and call for an automatic response of 2 or 3 outside departments with an engine. Is that realistic?

 

FDNY sends 3 & 2 with a battalion on a reported fire. If they receive multiple calls they may "load up the box" and send 4 & 2, rescue, squad and the battalion, which adds up to 46 personnel. They are probably one of the only departments in the area that can supply that manpower without totally stripping their city of fire protection and without having to call the neighboring department(s) to start an engine along.

 

Can you imagine a fire chief trying to justify this response based on one call? If multiple reports are received and people are trapped, then by all means transmit the 2nd alarm while en route. I think the NFPA does great work, but a video like this does nothing but portray the fire service as unrealistic to the city fathers and puts in the mind of many firefighters that they are asked to respond to calls severely under-manned (which is true in many cases). So why recommend a standard that many cities, with only 3 on a piece, cannot even come close to meeting? It becomes a document that is destined to collect dust on a shelf.  

[nfd2004 750]

"LayTheLine", I must agree with you about a 12 story building. Most places do NOT have 43 personnel to handle such an incident. But also as well, MOST Places do NOT have 12 story buildings either. Most are 2 or 3 story as in the other examples presented.

 

 The city you described in your example is very similar to the description of Bridgeport, Ct. (8 Engines, 3 Ladders, 1 Rescue with four members on each). They DO have 12 story buildings. They also have a mutual aid plan which is set up for when something like that happens. That would bring in a response to cover the rest of the city from outside career departments.

 

 But for most places, it is the everyday 2 1/2 frame or 3 story brick building that this NFPA recommendation might be trying to explain. If a city doesn't have high rise buildings, there's no need to justify at least 43 firefighters on duty. But for many places, there is a need to justify 15 firefighters. After that it becomes a mutual aid response. I could list at least a dozen in Connecticut alone that fit that description.

 

 Even within the "Fractured Fire Service of Norwich, Ct" there are 12 Firefighters on duty around the clock. That city has NO BUILDINGS OVER 7 stories. When everybody "IS" tied up at a fire, mutual aid kicks in. Not only to respond to the incident, BUT to cover the empty firehouses as well.

 

 Here's an interesting fact to consider though. Stretching a hose line up to a Third Floor with "2 Firefighters", vs "3 Firefighters". It has been proven that by just adding that one extra firefighter, that hose line can be stretched TWICE as fast. Thereby getting water on the fire quicker, preventing that fire from getting bigger.

 

 This NFPA Standard is NOT only talking about recommendations for 12 story buildings. It is also referring to the much smaller buildings and the type of response initially required to successfully complete the job without loosing the building or perhaps it's occupants.

 

I think any firefighter who has pulled up to a 2 story building at 2 AM with less than 15 firefighters, and having reports of people still trapped inside will certainly understand the value of this on duty recommendation. And for the citizens in there trying to get every breathe of fresh air they can - before aid can reach them, "I think they might understand as well".

[FireMedic049 597]

12 hours ago, LayTheLine said:

So why recommend a standard that many cities, with only 3 on a piece, cannot even come close to meeting? It becomes a document that is destined to collect dust on a shelf.  

Because the science/research says that's what's needed to address the tasks that may need to be immediately performed.

 

While it may be true that sending 43 each and every time, everywhere is unrealistic, that in and of itself doesn't translate into not needing 43 when there's an actual fire.

 

Expanding on your line of thinking, the standard also calls for a minimum of 4 per apparatus and up to 6 for "high hazard" areas, yet many cities are staffing 2 or 3 on a piece.  Although it may be unrealistic for many cities to staff 4 per piece, 4 is what it takes for a unit operating by itself to initiate interior operations under OSHA 2in/2out, unless there is an immediate life safety issue.  As such, it would be irresponsible for an industry standard to recommend staffing that would require a unit to wait for another unit to arrive in order to get the first line in operation.

 

It would be equally irresponsible for an industry standard to recommend less firefighters than what the science/research says are needed overall, just because most cities are unable to commit that many on each response.

[LayTheLine 108]

Nfd2004, I am in agreement with you about the standard for both of the first two scenarios, but perhaps I didn't clearly state my point: They are suggesting sending 43 out the door on the initial call - period. I think the type and quantity of calls should be taken into account. I don't know how Bridgeport runs, but I'm guessing they don't send 6 engines, 3 ladders, the rescue & a chief to every reported structure fire in a building over 7 stories. That would leave 2 engines to cover the city. I understand how mutual aid works and if fire dispatch starts receiving additional calls then by all means transmit a 2nd or 3rd alarm for that call in order to get your 43 firefighters. I believe NFPA should include that qualifier in there. I would also doubt that cities around Bridgeport roll apparatus to help cover the city on 1 report of a high rise fire because Bridgeport is sending 6/3/1 right out the door. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

FireMedic049 - as to your expanding on my line of thinking, the majority of career fire deparments send 1 engine or 2 & 1 at best to residential AFA's and that doesn't meet the 15 person standard. That doesn't mean your not going to need 15 when there is a fire. Again, reasonableness is the key. If a 2nd source comes in for the AFA then upgrade the assigment to a structural response. So does sending 10 FF's to a residential AFA seem reasonable based on what we know about frequency of fires through AFA's? I would think so. At the same time, does responding 43 FF's to single report of a fire in a building ovet 7 stories seem reasonable - even if it means starting along 2 other departments? In my opinion it is not. If additional reports start coming in that the whole floor is on fire then strike however many alarms you need to to get to 43. That's what runcards are for. Heck strike a 4th alarm if you know that is the minimum to get your 43. That can be pre-determined by knowing which each alarm brings.

[FireMedic049 597]

1 hour ago, LayTheLine said:

FireMedic049 - as to your expanding on my line of thinking, the majority of career fire deparments send 1 engine or 2 & 1 at best to residential AFA's and that doesn't meet the 15 person standard. That doesn't mean your not going to need 15 when there is a fire. Again, reasonableness is the key. If a 2nd source comes in for the AFA then upgrade the assigment to a structural response. So does sending 10 FF's to a residential AFA seem reasonable based on what we know about frequency of fires through AFA's? I would think so. At the same time, does responding 43 FF's to single report of a fire in a building ovet 7 stories seem reasonable - even if it means starting along 2 other departments? In my opinion it is not. If additional reports start coming in that the whole floor is on fire then strike however many alarms you need to to get to 43. That's what runcards are for. Heck strike a 4th alarm if you know that is the minimum to get your 43. That can be pre-determined by knowing which each alarm brings.

You missed my point.

 

I was addressing your question regarding the standard's personnel recommendation.  It would be irresponsible for them to recommend an initial response that would be less than what they determined is needed.

 

Whether or not that is a reasonable response to an AFA or the department can achieve that response themselves is a different issue.  If I'm not mistaken, 1710 recommendations are based on actual fires in a specific building type and not AFAs and other non-fire responses.  So not sending 43 upfront to an AFA wouldn't necessarily be non-compliant.

 

 

[LayTheLine 108]

Ok, maybe I did miss your point and perhaps I don't understand standards and compliance & non-compliance. But if one call reports a fire in a high-rise building and the city sends everything it's got (say four 4 man engines, two 4 man ladders, and a chief for a total of 25) and they get to the location and find a room and contents fire in a hotel room on the 14th floor. They stretch a line and knock down the fire, vent and do a primary search. They find an occupant who was in the bathroom dead from smoke inhilation. Now in the court of law the department is sued because the lawyer argues that you were non-compliant with a national standard and if you had been comliant his plaintiff may have lived. Probably not a winable case because whether you sent 1 or 100 FF's to the scene the occupant was most likely dead before the first engine came to a stop at the curb. But how do these standards apply once the fire is out and lawyers get involved? 

[FireMedic049 597]

11 minutes ago, LayTheLine said:

Ok, maybe I did miss your point and perhaps I don't understand standards and compliance & non-compliance. But if one call reports a fire in a high-rise building and the city sends everything it's got (say four 4 man engines, two 4 man ladders, and a chief for a total of 25) and they get to the location and find a room and contents fire in a hotel room on the 14th floor. They stretch a line and knock down the fire, vent and do a primary search. They find an occupant who was in the bathroom dead from smoke inhilation. Now in the court of law the department is sued because the lawyer argues that you were non-compliant with a national standard and if you had been comliant his plaintiff may have lived. Probably not a winable case because whether you sent 1 or 100 FF's to the scene the occupant was most likely dead before the first engine came to a stop at the curb. But how do these standards apply once the fire is out and lawyers get involved? 

I get your concern, but will point out that NFPA 1710 has been around for a number of years now.  Many departments continue to staff less than 4 on each apparatus and not put the full 15-17 FFs on scene within the 8 minute time frame in the standard.  I'm sure there are already cases in which people have been killed/injured and "non-compliant" staffing/response was or could be reasonably argued to be a factor in the outcome, but the fire service isn't exactly awash in lawsuits because of it.

 

It's too complicated to explain legal aftermath here, in part because of variables in each situation, but there's a degree of sovereign immunity that can be involved with government agencies and gross negligence by the fire department typically has to be proven in order to prevail.  

[LayTheLine 108]

Fair enough... thanks!