Recently, first responders have been blasted in the news — and perhaps justifiably so. Some of the headlines: "Ambulance Driver Charged with DUI, with Patient Aboard"; "Autopsies Find Alcohol, Some Cocaine, Two Officials Say"; "Drunk EMT Rants on Radio, Calls 911"; "Nevada Firefighter Booked on Drug Charges"; "N.J. Firefighter, Accused of Apparatus DWI, Due in Court"; " New Jersey Department Awaits Alcohol Ruling"; "New York Firefighters Accused of Rowdy Behavior"; "Firefighters Suspended"; "Other Massachusetts Departments Talk About Drugs"; "Beer Banned in Firehouses"; and "New York Departments Move to Cork Excess Drinking."
Many fire departments continue to struggle with the issue of alcohol use by members. In a Newsday article written by Eden Laikin, a letter from a fire district attorney, Joseph Frank, is quoted as noting difficulties in disciplining volunteers: "The volunteer fire service presents a unique challenge when to comes to discipline, since the need to continue to maintain an adequate staff and the need to maintain discipline must be balanced in an environment, where there is no significant financial incentive to retain personnel as in a paid workplace."
Alcohol and rowdy behavior in the fire service are not new. The modern-day FDNY was formed from an all-volunteer force that protected the city until the formation of the Metropolitan Fire Department on March 30, 1865. Ironically, the idea of creating a fully paid fire department was supported by the city's police commissioners. Newspapers of the day gave eight reasons in support of a fully paid city fire department and the abolishment of the volunteer fire department. Reason number four, quoted from Our Firemen by A.E. Costello: "Because associations of young men from the class that supplies volunteer firemen in a great city are removed from the restraints of family and well-ordered society become proud of vices and popular with their fellows because they possess them. Being organized and acting under a semblance of command, they feel a degree of strength that impels them too often to defy the law and disturb public order."
Many civilian detractors for years claimed that we were a bunch of drunks who went around saving foundations and chimneys. As they say, we've come along way, baby, but with that said, it is hard to deny based on recent headlines that alcohol and more recently drugs are a huge problem in the fire service. A recent Boston Globe article stated, "Some firefighters said that long hours, boredom and high levels of stress contribute to a culture in which drinking is accepted, if not condoned. They hope that these reports would shine light on a problem some described as pervasive." It happens more often than people think. "Said a Dorchester firefighter, who declined to give his name because he said his peers would ostracize him, 'It happens more than we want to admit.'"
Alcohol is typically the substance most abused by public safety workers. A June report on substance abuse in the U.S. workforce found that 9.1% of workers in a group that includes firefighters reported heavy alcohol use during the previous month. The rate of alcohol use in the protective-service category was slightly above the national average for all workers, according to the report by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Conversely, firefighters, law enforcement workers and others in the protective-service group had the lowest rate of illicit drug use of any group of workers, with 1.5% reporting drug use in the previous month.
In Boston, where two firefighters died in the line of duty in a store fire in August, autopsy information that was released recently found that a 55-year-old firefighter had a blood alcohol limit of 0.27, more than three times the legal limit for being drunk, and a 53-year-old firefighter had cocaine in his system. The families of both firefighters are in jeopardy of losing the Department of Justice line-of-duty death benefit under the Public Safety Officers Benefit (PSOB) Program. The current $303,064 benefit will not be paid to any firefighter's survivors where it can be proven that the firefighter had any alcohol or drugs in his or her system at the time of death.
The federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act that was passed into law in the late 1980s had a provision to require fire apparatus operators to obtain commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) to drive fire apparatus and hence would have compelled fire departments to enact random alcohol and drug testing policies. However, most states chose under heavy political pressure from the fire service itself to exempt fire departments from the previsions of this law. (Funny how the public works department in your municipality is required by law to have a random alcohol and drug testing program and the fire department is not. With that said, one may conclude that the garbage truck driver in your town is operating a vehicle to a higher degree of safety than the fire apparatus operator in your town.)
We are in the business of providing public safety and yet we represent some unsafe drivers by virtue of the laws from which we have gotten ourselves exempted. We had our chance and we blew it! Many occupations require random testing and have declared that alcohol and drugs have no place in the workplace — truck drivers, bus drivers, pilots, police officers, train engineers, ship captains, nurses and, in some states, even amusement park ride operators. I will never understand why many in the fire service believe we have a sense of entitlement and need not follow the safety rules that everyone else does.
When I conduct my emergency vehicle driving classes, I ask my students whether the United States has a drug and alcohol problem. The answer is always an overwhelming yes. So where does the U.S. fire service think that firefighters come from, Mars? If this country has a drug- and alcohol-abuse problem, which it does, then so does the fire service. Fire service administrators at every level need to get their heads out of the sand. Why? Because we have a problem. We need a national movement to embrace random alcohol and drug testing for every member of the U.S. fire service. The citizens we protect deserve nothing less.
MICHAEL WILBUR, a Firehouse® contributing editor, is a lieutenant in the New York City Fire Department, assigned to Ladder Company 27 in the Bronx, and has served on the FDNY Apparatus Purchasing Committee. He consults on a variety of apparatus-related issues around the country. For further information, access his website at www.emergencyvehicleresponse.com.
"The Killing Fields": Readers' Questions Answered
July's Emergency Vehicle Operations column titled "The Killing Fields: Is It Time for Federal Oversight of Emergency Vehicle Operations?" generated a number of questions from our readers. The column centered on firefighter fatalities involving tankers and other mobile water-supply apparatus. Here's a sampling:
Safe Tanker Operations
Reference the editorial: "The Killing Fields" by Michael Wilbur in the July 2007 edition:
- No offense, but a New York City lieutenant commenting on tankers? OK, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but come on!
- Any tanker driver/passenger death is too many. But I think if you put it in perspective, tanker fatalities per operating hour are probably low. We just make great headlines. Tankers do not drive to the scene and park like engines, trucks and ladders. They keep moving. Fatigue becomes the problem along with complacency. Good officers need to "help" good tanker drivers stay alert or get relieved.
- CDLs (commercial driver's licenses) would help EVERY driver. Who were the idiots that got fire equipment excused?
- NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) is NOT the answer. They have standards for tankers now. Those that can afford it are buying those tankers, and have been, and still wreck. Understand that there are many departments in this country that struggle to pay for fuel, insurance and any apparatus. They buy what they can and use it. (Proudly they give their citizens a great return on what little investment they can make).
- With over 31 years in three states (Indiana, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) that all had tanker operations, I have had a little experience in flat and hilly terrain and all weather (24 below one night in Indiana). The tanker problem is that a "body in motion tends to stay in motion." The NFPA baffles are from side to side to limit front/back water movement. Water does not just move front to back. If it moves sideways on a bend, guess which way the mass is moved? The baffles work IF the truck is full. Drop the level and their effectiveness is greatly diminished. A full tank does not have much room for the water to move. Everywhere I went, the rule became full or empty before you move. No exceptions.
Thanks for listening.
Keep raising the questions!
Bill Ganter
Richmond, KY
Michael Wilbur responds: Thanks for writing. Here are my comments:
- In addition to being a career fire lieutenant in New York City, I have been a rural volunteer firefighter for over 30 years. In the early part of my career as a volunteer, I spent much of my time behind the wheel of a custom 3,600-gallon pumper/tanker with a 1,500-gpm pump and a five-speed manual transmission. Moreover, I made a significant contribution to the New York State Water Supply Course, which includes much information on rural water supply. Also, I have contributed to the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) reports on the Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative, Safe Operation of Fire Tankers and the IFSTA Drivers/Operators Manual. So I stand by the comments that I made, not as an opinion, but rather based on experience and the facts.
- The following statement is probably true, but it is not about the number of firefighters being killed in tanker/mobile water-supply vehicles or tanker fatalities per mile driven; rather, it's about how they are killed and the utter stupidity of firefighters not wearing the safety equipment provided to them, i.e., seatbelts: 90% of all fire apparatus fatalities are completely preventable. Everyone in the fire service ought to go to just one National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Weekend to see the horrible price that is paid each time a firefighter dies in the line of duty. The emotional, financial and psychological wreckage that a firefighter leaves behind is unimaginable unless you have lived through it. I have.
- Unfortunately, the fire service got fire equipment excused. When the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act was passed into law in the late 1980s, fire service organizations could not run fast enough to their respective state capitals to get their states' fire departments exempted. How ironic that fire departments are exempt from the very safety rules put into place to make the roads safer for everyone, yet we are in the business of providing public safety and we represent one of the most unsafe groups on the road due to the exemptions granted. What did we get exempted from? CDLs, mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, mandatory use of seatbelts and mandatory annual vehicle inspection programs for apparatus. The only state that I am aware of that did not exempt firefighters was California. If anyone knows of any other states I, along with the readers of my column, would like to know. How truly sad this is.
- Having under-funded or non-funded fire departments in this country is a major part of the problem. I have never seen a police officer driving a 30-year-old police car, yet we drive around in 30-year-old fire trucks, or worse have to use worn-out milk trucks, oil trucks, gas trucks, propane tankers or other old hand-me-down vehicles. As I stated in the column, the Department of Justice will pay almost $300,000 to the survivors of a firefighter killed in a tanker crash. Wouldn't that money be better spent buying an NFPA-compliant tanker and keeping the firefighter alive?
- NFPA baffles that I have seen are rectangles about one foot square that prevent not only the front-to-back, but also the side-to-side surge of the water. It is true that running a tanker completely full or completely empty makes the truck and the load more stable and less likely to flip over. But if the truck is properly baffled, it is not nearly as critical to have the tank completely empty or completely full. The apparatus that I wrote about in my column was a 1960s-vintage single-axle gasoline tanker being pulled by an army surplus deuce-and-a-half tractor. The tank was reported by the news media to have held 5,000 gallons of product/water. Gasoline weighs six-plus pounds a gallon and water weights eight-plus pounds a gallon, so immediately when the gasoline was taken out of the truck and replaced with water, the tank became overweight by 10,000 pounds, or five tons, without baffles.
Not an Emergency Vehicle?
In the volunteer fire department in which I started my fire service career, we ran a couple of converted oil trucks. One didn't hold much water, maybe 750 gallons, but the other was a large chassis with 2,200 gallons of water and a 10-speed manual transmission with a split shift! Needless to say, I was not comfortable driving it, and as I got rank, I was not comfortable with my firefighters driving it, and made that very clear. Thankfully, both were replaced fairly soon with NFPA-compliant 1,800-gallon tankers.
I came up with the following idea: In Maine, to operate on the public way using lights and/or sirens, you must be an "authorized emergency vehicle." This is basically a list of police cars, ambulances, fire chief and chief officer vehicles, all fire department-owned apparatus, etc. As an "authorized emergency vehicle," you can proceed through red lights, exceed the speed limit, go down one way streets, etc. — the normal routine (with due regard for public safety).
I'd like to propose an amendment that restricts fire department-owned vehicles from being authorized emergency vehicles if they don't meet the NFPA standard for the time period that they were built or modified. This would take away lights and sirens from the converted oil trucks, converted milk trucks, surplus army trucks and shade tree tankers. They could still respond, but only with the flow of traffic. To back this up, I'd further note that firefighters in Maine are driving these vehicles that normally would require a CDL, but are exempt due to the rules for fire departments. So we have untrained (non-CDL) drivers operating trucks that are not designed for the job they are doing and exceeding posted speed limits, making them a hazard to the firefighters, the public and the homeowner awaiting water on his fire. Do you know of other states with similar laws or attempts? I know the outlawing of non-NFPA trucks would be a hard sell, though no less the right thing to do. Stay safe.
Deputy Chief Adam Miceli
Rockland Fire Department
Rockland, ME
Michael Wilbur responds: Thank you for writing, Chief Miceli. Pictured at left is a tender from Camp Pendleton in California. Note that the light bar is amber rather than red and there are no sirens on this apparatus. It is believed by many in this business, including me, that all fire tankers/tenders should be classified as support vehicles rather than response vehicles, as you have suggested. But rather than just non-compliant tankers/tenders, all tankers should be classified as support vehicles. It is an idea that makes sense and is long overdue.
As a volunteer firefighter. I remember the days of going to barn fires that were fully involved with no exposures, no life hazards and for the next two or three days watching less-than-roadworthy tankers/tenders zoom up and down rural roads with lights and sirens hauling water to a deep-seated hay fire with little chance of complete extinguishment. The only life or property risks were those of us in the tankers/tenders or any civilian silly enough to cross our paths and who did not know just how dangerous it was to be driving around us. Most knowledgeable rural firefighters would now openly admit that if the fire is not under some kind of control with the booster tank of the first engine to arrive, the arrival of a tanker/tender some time later with lights and sirens was not going to make a difference in the fire's final outcome.
I received many letters after writing "The Killing Fields" from writers who were unhappy that I suggested that perhaps the Department of Transportation (DOT) would act as an enforcement agency with these in many cases very dangerous vehicles. Yet while most complained about my suggestion, very few wrote about any viable alternative, so it was refreshing to see your good idea to help stop "the killing fields."
"No" to Federal Oversight
I have been a volunteer firefighter for 30 years, 22 as a driver/operator. To have the federal government, most specifically the DOT, regulate and enforce fire apparatus safety would be a bureaucratic nightmare. The amount of time the federal government takes to handle and enact regulations would cause more paperwork for every fire department and the time spent waiting for the "red tape" to make it to someone's desk would be more headache than help. Plus, the system would eventually become political, having the areas with the most Senate and House "contacts" being able to help and/or hinder certain situations.
I believe that the NFPA, along with individual yearly state motor vehicle inspections, could possibly help with the amount of accidents. Of course, the individual fire departments should have their own SOPs and criteria that match the state and NFPA regulations. I realize that there are small departments who would not be able to buy or have their current apparatus meet safety regulations. If this is the case, then those apparatus should not be on the road. Having the driver, firefighters on the piece and others on the road killed and/or injured responding to any incident is not worth it.
Yes, safety regulations are needed for all apparatus new and old, volunteer and paid departments, but federally regulated mandates are not the solution. Let's try it from a local and state standpoint along with the NFPA 1901's. Ask your local or state police motor carrier officers to take a look at questionable issues. Better to find it in the engine room than on the road!
Timothy T. Weir
Driver/Operator
John H. Enders Fire Company & Rescue Squad
Berryville, VA
Michael Wilbur responds: The NFPA has had the 1901 Fire Apparatus Motorized Standard for a number of years; however, the standard has no impact or effect if a fire department decides to take a worn-out propane tanker, fill it up with water, put red lights and a siren on it, and call it a tender or a tanker.
Unfortunately, fire apparatus are only required to be inspected in 19 out of the 50 states as of the last time that I researched inspectional issues. If state inspections were going to save us, forget it, unless you are in a state that requires inspections.
I agree that individual fire departments should have their own standard operating procedures (SOPs) or standard operating guidelines (SOGs), or whatever we call them, and yes they should match state and NFPA regulations. But the reality is that most fire departments that have SOPs DO NOT ENFORCE THEM. In fact, I recently attended a seminar taught by a lawyer/police official who stated if you do not enforce your SOPs right down to the last letter, then throw them out before someone uses them against you in a court of law and wins.
I also agree with you that if a fire department's current apparatus cannot meet safety regulations, they should not be on the road, but again who is going to inspect them and enforce it? As far as recommending the DOT, that agency already enforces regulations regarding what products can be put in what tanks and driven down the road safely, and tends to do it without a lot of political red tape or nonsense.
You, like many others who spoke up, feel that federal mandates are not the answer, and maybe they are not. But one thing is for sure: whatever we are doing or not doing today is not working, as the toll of firefighters dying in "the killing fields" continues to grow at an alarming rate — and many of these fatalities occur while responding and returning.
Thanks to all of you for caring enough to write in. We appreciate it. — Michael Wilbur
