LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
In defense of the “Hotshots” calendar
I’m writing in response to Mr. Oltersdorf’s letter that was published in your August issue.
First, I’d like to state that I do agree with Mr. Oltersdorf’s opinion (and yours) of manufacturers using professional models to depict women as firefighters. I feel it is a disgrace to all female firefighters to see models, partially clothed, posing in this way only to appeal to the men in the fire service and make a sale.
However, in response to his statements about “Hotshots in the Fire Service,” (which he apparently does not understand or know s nothing about), I’d like to set a few things straight.
I am in the 1988 Hotshots calendar (August). I am, by no means, a professional model My photo (or any other in the calendar) does not exploit any woman in the fire service.
Being chosen for the calendar was not as easy as some people evidently think. I was required to submit all of my credentials proving my firefighting, emergency medical, and rescue training in order to be considered for the calendar. To the best of my knowledge, all of the women who were chosen for the calendar were required to submit their credentials.
I have been a firefighter for 10 years. In addition, I am a Pennsylvania state-certified EMT and vehicle rescue technician. I have also held officerships in the two departments with which I have been affiliated.
I see no harm in qualified, professional and/or volunteer female firefighters having their pictures in a calendar. Through the years we have worked just as hard; gotten just as dirty, sweaty, and tired; and learned just as much as men in the fire service. \ hat is wrong with tasteful pictures in a calendar showing that behind the sweat and dirt there is (though some men still find it hard to believe and accept) a woman?
TTie bottom line is that sex had nothing to do with it, and my picture is not “using sex” or a “type of garbage,” as Mr. Oltersdorf referred to it.
BETH ANN LADERER Firefighter, EMT, vehicle rescue technician Baden Volunteer Fire Department Baden, Pennsylvania
Dispatchers and the Schomburg Plaza fire
In his article in the July Fire Engineering, Francis X. Holt suggests that dispatchers were remiss, curt, or not capable of properly dealing with a serious fire problem at the Schomburg Plaza in Manhattan.
Having firsthand knowledge of the fire, Fire Department of New York guidelines, and evidence (transcripts) of the investigation. I must reply that, if anything, poor performance by the FDNY field units was more responsible for things going wrong.
Take into account the following;
On the initial alarm, responding units were directed to investigate reports of smoke/fire on the upper floors.
Before the arrival of units, dispatchers realized the potential severity and sent more companies than required by regulations. Explicit FDNY operational guidelines for compactor fires in the Schomburg complex recommend that the officer-in-command specially call additional companies if a compactor fire is encountered. City department procedures require the roofmen of responding ladder companies at compactor fires to vent the roof (or bulkheads) and then make an inspection of the upper floors from the top floor down.
The officer-in-command, in one of the earliest reports from the scene, didn’t order additional help, but returned the response of extra companies the dispatcher had already sent. Furthermore, the officer-in-command transmitted a signal indicating that there was a compactor fire, under control, that hadn’t extended from the shaft.
Subsequent reports to the dispatcher from civilians must be weighed against the dispatcher’s knowledge of operations and reports from the officer-in-command. Inexperienced civilians may panic or relay greatly exaggerated reports. In the dispatcher’s view’, these reports must be given proper consideration. But when the officer-in-command gives directly contradictory information, whose report w’ould you expect your dispatcher to give more credibility to?
As far as curtness or impoliteness are concerned, consider that in the FDNY, alarms are often received in our dispatch offices at rates exceeding 200 per hour. Manning in the FDNY dispatch offices may only provide from one to four (at most) “alarm receipt dispatchers” to handle these. How’ polite can you be? How much time should you spend with a caller when there’s a possibility that the other phone ringing is not for an alarm already handled, but for a totally different life-threatening emergency?
Unfortunately, fire service management is too often blinded by the flashy performances, newsworthy headlines, and explicit confidence in its firefighting forces. Unless management realizes that sometimes dispatchers can, and do, often know more about a situation than our personnel at the scene, the situation will not change, and dispatchers will go on feeling powerless.
Fire department managers are easily swayed by the numbers, political clout, or general perception of their firefighters. They don’t care to recognize or understand the importance of the dispatcher’s function. Until we are considered an integral element in fire suppression and lifesaving, we shall continue to be blamed for the faults and omissions of others.
Ai TROJANOWICZ Dispatcher FDNY, Brooklyn Central Office
No gear will stop the shrapnel of a truck tire rim
I’m writing in regard to Gene Carlson s article, “Tire Fires,” that appeared in your July issue. Although the article was very informative, I feel that he left out one very important aspect.
Certain truck tire rims are made of several pieces which are connected while under pressure. When superheated during a fire situation, these rims can explode, sending pieces of metal in eveny direction.
Several truck mechanics have been killed or have lost limbs while working on these rims under normal conditions; extreme care must be used when keeping them cooled.
I hope that no firefighter should happen to be near or in the line of the explosion, because no bunker gear will stop the shrapnel of a truck tire rim.
CHARLES A BADEAU Eastern Kentucky University Fire & Safety Engineering Technology
Another view on the National Fire Sprinkler Association
I just read your excellent editorial on the sprinkler industry in the July issue. I write as Fairfield, Connecticut’s leading sprinkler salesman, non-commissioned, of course, so I agree 100 percent.
I’m a member of the National Fire Sprinkler Association, and I’ve asked them to take out advertisements in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Reader’s Digest to make my sales pitch easier. I still have people fighting sprinklers because they think all the heads will go off if one is activated. 1 had the owner of a convalescent hospital tell me he was afraid of what might happen if all that water came down on an old person. The NFSA doesn’t help me with my sales because they “preach to the choir.”
The state of Connecticut is bragging about its sprinkler law, which mandates that buildings more than five stories have to be sprinklered. Most victims in San Juan and Westchester died on the first floor. Connecticut building officials are talking “compartmentation”; that was fine for World War I naval ships, but not for buildings.
DAVID W RUSSELL Fire Chief
Fairfield (Conn.) Fire Department
Information sought on fire education program for Southeast Asian population
The Milwaukee Fire Department is attempting to develop a better fire education program for our community’s Southeast Asian population.
We’d be interested in any Information on this topic or in learning of any related experiences other departments have had. Please send all information to Warren J. Skonieczny, First Lieutenant, Milwaukee Fire Department, Bureau of Instruction and Training, 6680 N. Teutonia Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53209.
WARREN J SKONIEIZNY First Lieutenant Milwaukee Fire Department
