Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFPA 1710 - Is this good?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NFPA 1710 - Is this good?

    Upon reading the latest version of NFPA 1710, my initial reaction is that this is a good thing. Now I'm reading where a chief's association in Boulder County, Colorado is opposing this saying that it will cost too much money. Don't we need this to make the "powers that be" realize that we need more staffing? I know I'm just a vollie, but I'm all in favor of increasing staffing on paid departments. What do you guys think?

  • #2
    Chief Donner (Boulder, Co) is opposing this mainly because it would basically mean that if you didnt meet 1710 when its enacted you would be liable for what you didnt meet.

    What would be a better way is allow each department to phase in their staffing, we need staffing but sometimes the money just isnt there.

    1710 isnt bad, it isnt good its kind of in limbo because there are so many departments that couldnt meet it if they wanted to, and so many that already exceed it. Basically its a cookie cutter approach. A one size fits all. Were all for 4-5 people on trucks but it isnt going to change overnight unless the finance and city hall honchos come through on their end.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well someone coming out and saying 2-3 person companies is insufficient and unsafe? I'd say that was a good thing.

      I'd even let places have 3 man companies if they don't operate alone, and can be backed up promptly.

      The response times established by the commitee are an arbitrary consensus. They may or may not be good.

      Unfortunately, like so many other standards, this one will be weakened for political reasons, so that enough of the right departments meet it.

      Comment


      • #4
        As far as I am concernd NFPA is a group of indivisuals that sit around a table and dictate what we can and cannot do as firefighters. Yet have any of them ever been inside a structure while it is burning or even better ever even watched one from the street. I have mixed feelings about anything NFPA does or says. Politics my friend, Politics thats all it is.

        ------------------
        http://www.abs.net/~tps/saleof.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          I haven't read NFPA 1710, but from what I've read here, it sounds alot like when they tried to push through NFPA 1200 which would have made it mandatory to respond with (and correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure someone will) no less than 11 people. 2 for the hoseline; 2 for backup; 2 for SAR; 2 for vent; 2 for RIT; (hmm, what was the 11th?)
          It would have been a death knell for volunteer departments, and a financial disaster for career. Luckily, the only mandate that came out of that was OSHA's "two in two out rule". Don't get me wrong, I am all for proper staffing. But like all the other federal mandates that are passed, none of them are funded. If NFPA and OSHA are so worried about how fires are staffed, why don't they lobby the powers that be to get more federal monies for the fire service. Tim, I agree with you on one point, NFPA officials sit around and pass regulations. Most were in the fire service and have very reputable careers. But they are like any other agency. They need to keep changing the rules to justify their existence. As to what Nate says about the Boulder CO. chiefs stance, we are already liable for what we don't meet for staffing. If you only had a three man company respond to a fire and two went in and something bad happened with no backup in place, that dept's *** is in a sling from OSHA right on down to the town council. If you don't have the resources you don't do the evolution. But do what you can. That same three man crew can still put water on it through a window if they had to or facilitate a rescue from another part of the building.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm all for more money for the fire department, but why should a taxpayer from west bumblefart, MO have to subsidise the fire department in podunk, GA through his federal taxes?

            Comment


            • #7
              Actually the people on this committee are almsot all longterm veteran firefighters, safety officers and chiefs.

              1710 will be a good thing once it's debugged. It takes on average 5 years to debug it and find out what is feasible and what's not.

              People complained about 1901 and 1500 but they work so give it time. Nothing is perfect.

              Comment


              • #8
                To answer yours and others questions ntvilleff, here is some info on the proposed standard.

                Here are the ROP and ROC with the final Preprint proposed copy at the end of the second link.
                http://www.nfpa.org/procom/pdfs/1710-p.pdf http://www.nfpa.org/procom/pdfs/1710-c.pdf


                1710-is for substatially all Career Depts.
                1720- is for Volunteer Dept.
                (Combos can choose which applies to them)

                1710s required 1st alarm assignment is based off of the following:

                A.5.2.3.2.1 For the purposes of this standard, the initial full alarm
                assignment capability is for a response to a structural fire in a
                typical 264-m2 (2000-ft2 ), 2-story, single family occupancy without a
                basement and with no exposures (detached home). All
                communities respond to fire incidents in this type of structure on a
                regular basis and therefore the hazards presented by this scenario
                are not unusual.
                Other occupancies and structures in the community that present
                greater hazards should be addressed by additional fire fighter
                functions and additional responding personnel on the initial full
                alarm assignment. For further information on the classification of
                hazards, see NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, 18 th edition.
                ----------------------------------------
                It is not based on a response to high-rise buildings or other multiple occupancy as some including the Chief in that Boulder article would have one beleive.

                It was argued by many submitters that the standard didn't take into account the "built-in" fire protection systems. However since the vast majority of communtites in this country do not have a sprinkler ordinances for these type dwellings their recomendations were rejected.

                4 men on a company is the minimum...you can go higher if you wish.

                Read the proposed standard...it should answer any of your questions or concerns.

                Two cents from a fireman.

                [This message has been edited by FRED (edited 05-07-2001).]

                Comment

                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                Collapse

                Upper 300x250

                Collapse

                Taboola

                Collapse

                Leader

                Collapse
                Working...
                X