|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Published October 14, 2005
- Louisiana State University - Fire Emergency Training Institute (FETI) publishes results of NetTalon System 3000 Performance Tests
The following article was abstracted from the complete article published by LSU FETI and available for download at the official LSU FETI web site. To download click on:
LSU FETI conducts performance experiment on Emergency Management System.
Abstract
The purpose of this evaluation is to highlight any measured effects from the use of the NetTalon System 3000 on fire ground operations, and decision making. Specifically, these tests were to explore the potential of improved information gathering and therefore better time management and utilization of resources.
The results of test fires that were conducted at the LSU - FETI multi-story burn structure. The LSU - FETI multi-story burn facility uses a combination of ordinary class "A" combustible materials, and liquefied propane gas (LPG) as fuel. The structure was outfitted with the NetTalon System 3000 V3 Emergency Information Management System.
The purpose of the performance tests were to highlight any measured effects from the use of the NetTalon System 3000 on fire ground operations and decision making. Specifically, the tests were to explore the potential of improved information gathering and therefore better time management and utilization of resources. The project was intended to identify areas of concern and provide any observation of behavioral changes of fire officers during the decision making process. The test was not designed to test system reliability or as a final system approval.
Participating members included personnel from the Louisiana Office of the State Fire Marshall, LSU FETI, City of Brusly Fire Department, Napoleonville Volunteer Fire Department, Prairieville Fire Department, Schriever Volunteer Fire Department, St. Amant Volunteer Fire Department, and the St. John West Side Fire Protection District.
Four tests were conducted using two control test groups and two experimental test groups. All participants were screened based on their years in the fire service and current fire suppression status. Each fire crew was made up of four men, consisting of an officer, a driver and two firefighters. An Incident Commander was assigned to each group. The staff members of LSU-FETI performed the functions of Apparatus Operator, Burn Coordinators, and official Time Coordinators.
Eight factors were used in the final test analysis:
- Notification - time of initial fire department notification
- Response - time of initial unit response
- On-Scene - time of first arriving unit on the scene (0.8 mi response distance)
- Entry - time of fire department entry into building
- Locate - time fire is located
- Suppress - time initial suppression operations
- Victim - time of victim location
- Total - total time of operation
Results
The test results illustrated above show some interesting time differentials. Incident Commanders in fire scenarios 1 and 4 were equipped with laptop computers with secure internet access to the test buildings fire alarm system using NetTalon's remote monitoring system. In the control groups, Incident Commanders in fire scenarios 2 and 3 received fire alarm information via two way radio as would be expected at a typical fire scene. Each fire officer participating in the test group were given complete autonomy in deciding when and what would initiate a response.
Comparing Scenario 1 & 2: In this case significant performance differences were found in seven of the eight factors studied as illustrated in the following illustration. System 3000 improved on-site performance from a low 31 seconds in initial unit response to 150 seconds for time for victim location.
Comparing Scenario 3 & 4: In this case significant performance differences were found in all factors studied as illustrated in the following illustration. System 3000 improved on-site performance by 25 seconds in initial unit response to 394 seconds for time for victim location.
When analyzing this data it is necessary to consider several factors including the relatively small size of the building (approximately 3000 sq. ft/floor), fire crews having previous knowledge of the building and differences between the controlled burn building environment and real fire scenes.
FETI officials stated that while property conservation is of extreme concern to the fire service, greater importance was concern for life safety. They concluded that since many victims are caused by exposure to smoke and carbon monoxide, the time differentials of both tests indicated that the System 3000 technology decreased the amount of time a victim would be exposed to harmful smoke and carbon monoxide. This difference would significantly increase the probability of saving victims lives due to a significant lowering their exposure to the fire.
Final Comments
Chris Spurlock would like to thank Mr. Carroll Herring, Director of LSU FETI, and the staff for accommodating the use of facility. Also, I would like to thank NetTalon for their ability to raise the bar in the fire service and allowing our facility to be the testing ground for new technology. Thanks is extended to all volunteers for their participation and input into this experiment.
It is my personal opinion that new technology should be embraced by emergency responders. The fire and emergency services is greatly benefiting from the use of computer based data resources, such as the Mapquest and various hazardous materials guides. This technology based trend should be further expanded to include real-time intelligence gathering capabilities. It is my opinion that such technology should eventually lead to better accountability of firefighters entering the structure and to collect and summarize real-time data in order to have better quality assurance in our fire ground operations.
|
|
|
|
