Do not take elevators that go to the fire floor
In “Operating Elevator Cars During a Building Fire” (September 2007), Chiefs Theodore Jarboe and John O’Donoghue highlight several noteworthy considerations regarding the use of elevators. First, as modern technology continually changes our fireground, is the “day-to-day” firefighter familiar with the elevators and the operation of those elevators found in his area of responsibility? Second, multistory buildings present a unique hazard to fireground personnel, unless the fire is on the grade floor. Then a quick access to the fire has been compromised.
Obviously, the higher the fire above grade level, the longer it will take resources to arrive at the fire floor. Unfortunately, this consideration presents a dilemma. Do attack personnel use the slow route (stairwell) or quick route (elevators)? Without a doubt, although stairwells are not a speedy method of ascent, they can normally be considered a safe route of ascent. However, the same cannot be said of elevators, particularly when past elevator incidents at fires are reviewedas an example, the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles. An eight-year study by the Fire Department of New York indicated that of 179 major high-rise fires, the elevators failed at 59, or 33 percent, of the fires!
In the article, the authors state: “If the fire is reported to be on the sixth floor or lower, do not use the elevators to attack the fire; use the stairs.” Based on the poor history of elevator use at fires, if it is unsafe for initial attack personnel to use the elevators for the first six floors, why is it safe for initial attack personnel to use the elevators for the seventh floor, 10th floor, and so on? To solve this dilemma, particularly after several unfortunate elevator incidents in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles City Fire Department adopted the following SOP: “Initial companies shall not use any elevator that can potentially go to the fire floor.”
John Mittendorf
Battalion Chief (Ret.)
Los Angeles City (CA) Fire Department
Change smoke alarms every 10 years
This refers to “Connecting with the Community: A Call to Action” (fireengineering.com) by Tom Kiurski. I would like to point out that in addition to testing and replacing smoke alarm batteries, we should make our community members aware that the National Fire Protection Association recommends that smoke alarms be replaced every 10 years. This will help ensure that all smoke alarms in the home are working properly.
John Flais
Plain City, Ohio
Preserving the volunteer fire service
This refers to Charlie Enlow’s Letter to the Editor in the September issue pertaining to my article “Paid Two-Week Training Spurs Retention and Recruitment” (Volunteers Corner). He makes some good points.
The tax associated with paying the firefighters is a real issue. There is no way the government, state and federal, will allow anyone to be paid without getting their share. Now, you would have to file a 1099 form to declare the income and pay taxes on it. Fire service members need to contact their legislators and officials to make the income exempt from taxes.
Enlow’s second, and even more important, comment is that employers will not allow their employees to have their pagers at work and leave work for alarms, so there is no way they would buy into the training. This is true for many places now. We all know you cannot leave some jobs. The employers that do not allow their employees to have their pagers at work should be made to answer the following question: Do you want to support the volunteer fire service and save vast amounts of money, or would you rather pay for a full-time career department? If the cost-effective volunteer service is preferred, they need to pay enough (much less than career) to make it work.
Timothy P. Pillsworth
Project Manager/Engineer
United States Military Academy
West Point, New York
“Aircraft emergencies primary mission” of Columbia (SC) Airport quick-attack unit
In the October 2007 issue, I was quoted as saying in Apparatus Deliveries that the Crash Rescue Equipment Service quick-attack unit purchased by the Columbia (SC) Metropolitan Airport was primarily for response to parking garage incidents and is available for aircraft emergencies, which is not true.
The Crash Rescue Equipment Service quick-attack unit the Columbia (SC) Metropolitan Airport purchased is primarily our rapid intervention vehicle for aircraft accidents and is available for response to our parking garage, freeway accidents, and structure fires on the airport site and for mutual-aid response off the airport site. This unit was purchased with Federal Aviation Administration funds, and response to aircraft emergencies is its primary mission.
Timothy H. Stone
Assistant Chief/Resident Fire Marshal
Columbia (SC) Airport
