Fire marshal defends departments - Durham Herald Sun - InspectionNews

Brian Hannigan · #1 (**permalink**) 03-26-2007, 06:26 PM

InspectionNews has just found the following electrical related information that might be of interest to you:

Fire marshal defends departments
Durham Herald Sun, NC - Mar 16, 2007
"I'm certain the fire department did their best and that there wasn't anything else we could do [to prevent the electrical fire]," Batten said.

More...

#2 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 06:50 PM

FYI....the link does not work.

Tim Moreira · #3 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 07:59 PM

Brian,

This link did open for me, however, I still cannot get the costofbusiness to open. I called my brother and had him try it and it *does* work for him so somewhere I have a software/hardware problem.

I will keep looking.

Dick,

Try holding down the ctrl button on the keyboard when you click on the link. This should override any pop up software your computer may have.

Just a thought.

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 04-06-2007, 10:05 AM

Herein lies the fire departments potential problem:

"Firefighters then flipped the store's circuit breaker into the "off" position before using a thermal imaging unit -- which detects and displays heat sources -- to ensure there were no "hot spots" in the store's ceiling, Batten said. "

Okay, once they made sure there were no "hot spots" with the power off, they should have "flipped the store's breaker" (I am assuming that means the main service disconnect) back to "on" and used their thermal imaging unit again - to see if there was an electrical problem in the store's ceiling. After all, that's why they were called "Firefighters responded to a call from Assaf around noon Tuesday after Assaf reported an odor of smoke coming from an area of ceiling surrounding an exhaust fan at the store, Batten said.", especially checking around that exhaust fan.

Actually, I would have done the reverse of the above. Check for hot spots with the infrared BEFORE turning the main off, then check again.

There 'was' something up there causing a potential problem with the power on, that's why they were called, why not check it 'first'?

Any reasonably good lawyer will be able to show that the above statements, by the fire department, indicated that they had knowledge that 'something' was 'not right' above "an area of ceiling surrounding an exhaust fan", and did not respond in a manner which would have, or could have, prevented the fire. Note, the "could have" is basically just as important as "would have".

Richard Rushing · #5 (**permalink**) 04-06-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Actually, I would have done the reverse of the above. Check for hot spots with the infrared BEFORE turning the main off, then check again.

There 'was' something up there causing a potential problem with the power on, that's why they were called, why not check it 'first'?

I agree... they did the process. And not the right sequence of proper testing.

Where you been, boy...

Rich

Jerry Peck · #6 (**permalink**) 04-06-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Rushing

Where you been, boy...

Out of town for 2 days of continuing edumacation.

Matt Hawley · #7 (**permalink**) 04-17-2007, 06:42 AM

I could not get the link to open.

Many fire dept across the country have thermal imaging cameras, however many dept do not give the needed training on how to use them, some figure if it glows it's hot. In a super heated enviroment a person will actually be the darker area when viewd through a TIC. Im sure they did the best they could with the knowledge and training they had.

Bob Harper · #8 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007, 02:57 PM

I can see all four parts of negligence in this case:
-duty to act
-damages
-act or omission
-act or omission the proximate cause of the damages

The other part is the use of specialized equipment. Did the firefighter who used the thermal imaging camera hold a current certification in its proper use with specific training in that application?

Did the Dept. develop written protocols for the use of their thermal camera based upon training and have the certifying agency review those protocols?

What records do they have on the maintenance and calibration of that instrument?

What other testing was conducted to ascertain if there was a potential fire brewing in a confined space?

What safeguards did the Fire Dept. place such as a "fire watch" to insure fire did not break out after the engine companies left?

In the old days, we would aire the place out, open as many places as we could without doing damage to the building and monitor for signs of fire. In the case with suspected electrical fires, the power was shut off at the main disconnect and sometimes the meter pulled until the utility company could respond.

Depending upon what is burning, you can get chlorine and phosgene gases released just in the smoke.

Gizmos and instruments are great but they come with some baggage. I know enough about thermal imaging to know I would need to take a Level 1 cert. course just to choose the instrument appropriate for my intentions, the care, feeding, and use, etc. IR is not something like a video game. In the hands of the untrained, it can not only be useless but dangerous for giving incorrect imrpressions. Just ask anyone who owns one and is certified. JP?

Jerry Peck · #9 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Harper

I know enough about thermal imaging to know I would need to take a Level 1 cert. course just to choose the instrument appropriate for my intentions, the care, feeding, and use, etc. IR is not something like a video game. In the hands of the untrained, it can not only be useless but dangerous for giving incorrect imrpressions. Just ask anyone who owns one and is certified. JP?

Correct.

I took the Level I Thermographer course when I first got into it, and it was a real eye-opener.

I've said it many times, and will repeat it here as Bob brought it up again - do not bother with an infrared camera if you are not going to that the course. When the cameras were over $10-15 grand, spending $1,650 (and that does not include travel, hotel, eating, etc. - just the course) on the course did not seem like much. But now, with infrared cameras down near $6 grand, spending *another* almost $2+ grand on the course may seem like overkill, but it is not.

If you are thinking of buying, or have already bought, an infrared camera, take the course and get your Level I Thermographer certification.

Or do not waste your money on the camera.