As I watched the memorial service in Charleston with the nine flag-draped caskets, I thought about the legendary Francis Brannigan, who said, “When a combustible structure is involved in fire, the building is the enemy, and you must know the enemy.” But I believe that we need to take that even a step further. The problem doesn’t start with the building; it starts with the construction codes. The building is an object, not an enemy. Our real enemies are the ones who allow such buildings to be built with little regard for the occupants’ safety and even less regard for the firefighters’ safety.
Considering that investigations still are underway in Charleston, I won’t be specific to that particular fire. Some of their earliest reports, though, mentioned that multiple human errors and failures in housekeeping policies and procedures contributed to the ignition and the fast propagation of that fire. Those same human factors historically have been at the root of most commercial and residential fires. Take a look at the recent catastrophic multiple-fatality fires. Through June, there have been a total of 247 total deaths in 60 fires, and 142 (57%) of those fatalities have been children.
And it is precisely because of these failures and human errors that I strongly believe in fail-safe, built-in automatic protection.
I think that the Charleston Fire Chief Rusty Thomas might have been correct, in a way, when he said, “sprinklers would not have put out the fire but would have at least slowed it.” Had the fire sprinklers been installed, they would have most likely slowed if not stopped the fire progression. At the very least, they could have prevented flashover and catastrophic structural failure.
While fire sprinklers can’t prevent fires, they can minimize the adverse consequences of failure once the fire has ignited. That is why I believe so strongly in fire sprinklers.
Also let me explain my use of the term “enemy.” I realize that it has a strong negative connotation and that it might sound contrary to what I have been writing about the importance of working with building officials in the International Code Council process and with the builders in the National Association of Home Builders to educate them to cooperatively change construction codes.
In my mind, the word “enemy” doesn’t exclusively mean prolonged antagonistic relationships. Having an enemy, opponent or adversary truly calls for more diplomacy and negotiations. I don’t view sprinkler opponents as mortal enemies in a classical term, but as adversaries that we must defeat with sound logic and science in the various code arenas.
With all due respect to our worthy adversaries in the code development process, their delay in acknowledging the value of fire sprinklers and embracing the use of such technology in all new construction is only prolonging the agony. They know quite well, especially after ICC final code hearings a couple of months ago, that it is only a matter of time before fire sprinkler systems protect all newly constructed homes in America. But the postponement is causing thousands of civilians’ and firefighters’ lives to be lost nationally each year.
I’m not pointing the finger and merely blaming sprinkler opponents for the fire problem. We should first look at ourselves before blaming others. We in the fire service share that burden, too, and our low priority for fire prevention and lack of strong participation in the code development process are significant contributors to the magnitude of the fire problem in our country. If we truly want to address the fire problem in our country, we must first rearrange our priorities. Fire sprinklers save firefighters’ lives, too.
July 13th, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Mr. Mirkhah has it right. We sprinkler our underground parking garages and our garbage rooms, but not our homes where clearly, the majority of fire deaths occur. It is time for the fire service to champion the cause before we lose more of our fire fighters.
July 14th, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Of, course fire sprinkler systems prevent fire from spreading, and would be good if it could be installed everywhere where people’s safety is considered. You must remember that sprinklers are an additional financial burden for the homeowner, and when they look closer at it, ask yourself what is probability of fire in your home, and are the systems you have already enough. People just don’t want to freeze their money into something that probably will never be used.
July 16th, 2007 @ 5:22 am
Blaming the codes and those who develop them is only one step removed from the easy answer Mr Mirkhah criticizes. In the words of that great American philosopher, Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”
Firefighters need to stop looking for others to blame and take a hard look at themselves. If we want to have our cake and eat it too, then we either need to get used to burying firefighters or get serious about the risks and take responsibility for our own safety.
Universal sprinkler requirements for buildings will only come when we accept that we will need fewer firefighters to crew our trucks and fire departments. Imposing standards for crewing and response time on our communities at the same time we demand sprinklers in all buildings is simply unsustainable, if not patently unreasonable. People won’t pay for more firefighters and accept the added costs of sprinklers in their buildings.
Give people real a real choice, and accept that sprinklers may save lives but not firefighters’ jobs.
July 17th, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
I believe that the answer to the problem is compromise. This means working together (fire service, insurance commission, and code enforcement along with the builders) to gradually show builders of commercial buildings the benefits of having sprinklers in the event of a fire and the insurance commission giving the owner a break when they purchase insurance for that property. As far as working with code enforcement well members of the fire service will have to compromise with this group too. In order to make this happen and maybe give them a little more credit for the idea. The owners get a savings from having the sprinklers installed and a sense of protection that in the event of a fire everything they worked for will not be lost.
July 18th, 2007 @ 11:30 am
My friend kiwichief, I agree with you on most points. What is posted on the blog is just a brief version of my article. In there, I said the same thing as you, that at times we are our own worst enemy. In my view though, at this day and age, equating fire sprinklers to loss of firefighters jobs is not correct. Nationally 80% of our call volume is EMS. Last year here in Las Vegas, only 4% of our call volume was actual fires. Las Vegas has one of the most stringent fire codes around the country, and focuses extensively on sprinklers. And yet, we have not had any job loss for firefighters at all. And as a matter of fact have built six stations and added hundreds of more firefighters in the past decade, and it is still continuing on that pace. I believe that formulating the fire safety equation, based on the assumption that fire sprinklers would reduce the number of fires, thus there is less need for firefighters would only mislead us to the incorrect conclusion. That is a wrong myth that must be correctly addressed. No wonder the unions were a tad hesitant to support the sprinklers, because they viewed it as an either/or decision, technology vs. labor. That myth might have had some logic couple of decades ago. But based on our national call volumes indicating our majority of calls are EMS, then no. Besides, there are about 100-120 million existing homes without sprinklers, so there are still plenty of fires to be fought, and in general firefighters wouldn’t need to worry about job security.
July 19th, 2007 @ 4:37 am
Thank you for your considered response to my post, Mr. Mirkhah. We clearly agree on more than we disagree.
Fortunately, I work for a fire brigade that still responds to very few medical emergencies. Sure, we get turned out to many non-fire incidents, and the numbers of those are growing, but few of them require four-person crews or demand 3-4 minute response times, which standards like NFPA 1710 impose on our communities when adopted.
It’s true that installing sprinkler systems will not reduce the number of fires, but not installing them will have little or no impact either. The smaller fires resulting from successful sprinkler activations should mean those fires pose less danger and require less effort from the attending firefighters. Why then impose the costly requirements of NFPA 1710 and their added costs if a community also adopts sprinkler requirements?
I’m certainly not in favor of reducing the number of firefighters in most communities. But I’m also not in favor of imposing requirements on communities, often without their consent, that will require them to add sprinklers to their buildings AND firefighters to their fire departments.
We work FOR our communities; we can demonstrate that we understand this by working WITH them to get the mix of building regulation and public fire protection costs right. Imposing costly requirements they neither understand nor desire is patronizing and suggests we do not trust their judgment. Such a situation is unsustainable for fire chiefs and unions alike.