In response to Michael N. Ciampo’s articles “Ladder Leg Lock Maneuvers” and “How Many Rungs?”(April 2003), he is right on the mark. I recently attended a hands-on training session where Ciampo was an instructor, and what he mentioned in “How Many Rungs?” is so true. I am a veteran firefighter with more than 20 years in the fire service and have been using the old-style method of raising 24-foot extension ladders with three to five rungs above the roof line, not always hitting the mark, and having to readjust—wasting precious seconds—when all I had to do was raise it the whole way and go. Ciampo’s way is how I will raise extension ladders from now on during fireground operations.
“Ladder Leg Lock Maneuvers,” which he also demonstrated during hands-on training, is another improvement I will make in the future. It is quicker and easier and not as hard to release from as the old style we were all taught in recruit school. Ciampo and his fellow instructors have showed this old dog some new tricks that will benefit me and my fellow firefighters.
Brian K. Singles
Firefighter
Hampton, Virginia
Tired of waiting
As I sit in the airport lounge, I have paused to reflect on yet another week, my sixth, as an adjunct instructor and educator for the Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC). I have always felt privileged to be a part of the Firefighter Survival Program developed by Chiefs John Salka and Rick Lasky—a program that routinely educates more than 400 firefighters and is perennially one of the largest and best attended classes in the Hands-on Training (H.O.T.) program. Firefighters travel across the nation to attend—members who are hungry and eager for information, knowledge, and the tools required to survive in this most dangerous of professions. Many come at their own ex-pense. And the instructors are here for them.
So as I wait for my delayed flight, I wonder why I have once again heard the rumblings of my fellow firefighters and students who are discussing budget cuts and company closings. Why, not 20 months after the largest, most single devastating event in fire service history, am I forced to pick up a newspaper and read about the possibility of the “nighttime” closing of 37—yes, 37—fire companies in New York City? What have I missed? Is the fire service no longer the primary responder to homeland acts of aggression? Are we not affected by the “terrorist threats” and the biological maladies? Obviously, the answer in the minds of many is no. We are not needed … we are not worthy.
I think it is fair to say we in the fire service are tired—tired of fighting for crumbs of money; tired of fighting for better equipment, for more training, for the bare minimums required to perform to the best of our ability; and tired of the political action. Damn, we’re just tired of begging.
A good friend of mine described it best when he said his job description was to put out fires, protect the firefighters under his command, and train to the best of his ability. The stripes on his uniform do not make him responsible for the budget woes of the politically wealthy. The men and women with the turnouts have a job to do, and I believe he is right. The foot soldiers have suffered enough. We have paid the bill not only on 9/11 but on countless other occasions throughout our history. It is time for the political leaders to step up to the plate and support the fire service—not with lip service and watered down bills but with real funding and strong support. Stop pretending to support us at our funerals and disasters only to later fade into the background. Stop pretending to care.
The time has passed … and we are tired of waiting.
Richard J. Blatus
Battalion Chief
Fire Department New York
Radio misunderstandings
The article “Firefighter Safety and Radio Communication” by Curt Varone (March 2003) has some excellent views on this subject, especially about discipline on the use of radios. In every catastrophic incident, radio communication has been a problem.
However, Varone has a common misconception about the engineering aspects of radio systems, as he states, “The benefit of a duplex system is that a relatively weakly powered portable radio (usually a maximum of five watts of power) can broadcast with the strength of the repeater (often 100 watts or more), provided the signal from the portable can reach a receiver.” The last part of this statement is very true and a major weakness in trunked and repeater systems. However, the first part is not always true.
It is possible for the portable radio to have a stronger signal because of the physical properties of radio signals. Without getting into technical details, trunked and repeater systems may not work in all cases for fires or other emergencies in buildings. A radio signal decreases in strength with the square of the distance, which is a similar characteristic of radiant heat from a fire (same principle). Again, without getting into the physics of electromagnetic theory, a radio signal from a repeater transmitter many miles away can be weaker than a signal from a low-power handheld radio at the scene.
The best case for on-scene communications is a portable repeater at the incident scene. The incident commander’s vehicle can be equipped with this type of radio equipment. This provides the stronger signal and a receiver that will be closer to the portable radios on the scene, which increase the reliability of the signal being heard by the repeater. In most cases, this provides a 100-percent reliable radio signal.
There are some incidents where you need to vary this on-scene repeater system. For some very tall high-rise buildings, the repeater must be far enough from the building so the signal does not have to pass directly up through many floors of steel and concrete. The other unusual situation is in underground structures, which may require their own repeater or “leaky line” antenna system. In addition, for incidents that are spread out over a large geographic area, such as wildfires, the portable repeater system should also use a crank-up antenna system for greater coverage.
Since mobile repeater systems typically do not transmit directly to a “dispatch center,” having someone on the scene monitoring all radio communications is a must. For long-duration or larger incidents, a chief’s aid or other person should be assigned this function early.
Chuck Smeby
Florida State Fire College
Division of the State Fire Marshal
Ocala, Florida
Curt Varone responds: Portable or vehicle-mounted repeaters may work well for some jurisdictions, but they have some inherent limitations. Most large communities rely on fixed receivers in various locations throughout the community to receive transmitted signals. These fixed receivers forward the signal to a repeater. Such a system is essential for routine radio traffic so that fire companies can contact fire alarm, personnel at one end of the community can communicate with personnel at the other end, etc. Under such a system, you cannot simply have an incident commander arrive on-scene at a fire and turn on a vehicle-mounted repeater. Other things have to happen, not the least of which is the disabling of the fixed repeaters. This then creates consequences for the remainder of the radio network. In a smaller community, this may not be a problem. Each community has to decide if such a system will work for it. As for vehicle-mounted receivers providing “a 100-percent reliable radio signal,” see the last sentence of my article.
As for my having a common misconception about radio theory, if it is physically possible for a five-watt portable radio to transmit more powerfully than a 100-watt radio on the same frequency from the same location, I guess I need to go back to school.
Removing an unresponsive firefighter
Regarding Tom Sitz’s article “Rapid Removal of an Unresponsive Firefighter from a Peaked Roof” (March 2003), here is an additional and less involved technique. Since rapid intervention is the key to the survival of an unconscious firefighter, remove the unnecessary steps and streamline the rescue system. Loop the rope around two ladder rungs and secure the end to the firefighter as described. Use the ladder as the friction device, thus eliminating the webbing, carabiner, and Munter Hitch. You will have the firefighter on the ground faster and safer with fewer steps to go wrong. It is also easier to remember for the average firefighter who doesn’t remember how to tie the Munter.
Eric Keim
Firefighter/Paramedic
Silverdale, Washington
Tom Sitz responds: This technique may be a little faster, but Keim is removing some of the safety built into the system. He does not mention how many times he would wrap the rope around a ladder rung, so I am going to assume it is somewhere between one and three wraps.
1. With the Hitch in place, you can always stop the firefighter in mid-air; depending on how many loops you put around the ladder rung, this may or may not always be possible, in my opinion.
2. It is easier to feed slack through a Munter Hitch than a rope that is looped two to three times around a ladder rung, thus increasing the speed at which the firefighter is on the ground.
3. With a Munter Hitch in the system, it can be switched over from a lowering system to a hauling system just by flipping the knot. It may not always be possible to flip the knot if the firefighter is in mid-air, but if it is and he needs to be repositioned, he can be hauled up and relocated. I believe this would be impossible with the rope wrapped around a rung.
4. As far as the average firefighter’s not being able to tie a Munter, every firefighter on my shift can a tie Munter Hitch wearing breathing apparatus and firefighting gloves. Why? Because we train on it—not once a year but several times a year under different conditions. This knot can be used in rope rescue, confined space rescue, and water rescue in addition to roof rescue. It is a three-step knot; all it takes is practice.
In appreciation of Brannigan and scissor stairs article
I just wanted to say thanks to Francis L. Brannigan for all the work he has done and continues to do for the fire service, especially in the area of building construction. Reading (really actually READING) Building Construction for the Fire Service while studying for our department’s lieutenant exam (I had kind of read it before, but this time I actually had to really read it!) gave me so much more of an appreciation of the importance of recognizing building construction while performing building surveys and inspections.
I just finished reading the April 2003 issue of Fire Engineering and was glad to see his Ol’ Professor column on scissor stairs. I appreciate his recognition of Orio Palmer for his articles on scissor stairs. Palmer was my wife’s cousin and a close friend of mine. He was truly a fire service mentor for me. He was the one who told me to read Brannigan’s book (admittedly long before I really read it as I should have) and articles and had a great deal of respect for him. Palmer was so adamant about the dangers of scissor stairs, he held my brother-in-law (a lieutenant in the career fire service as well) and I at bay for hours at a wedding, making us promise to look for them in every high-rise we came in contact with.
As a second note, I spoke today with our fire marshal’s office and was told that in Connecticut, scissor stairs exist but have been banned in new construction since 1997. I received a list of buildings in our jurisdiction that contain scissor stairs; I now have yet another company drill.
Peter S. Swanson
Acting Lieutenant
East Hartford (CT) Fire Department
