Presently the classification being discussed are not part of the NIFRS program. The question is then, why is the investigation community lagging behind the suppression community when it comes to the classification of the cause of ignition. Some say the investigators take the classification one step past that of the suppression section. That may be but are we attempting to take it too far.

Presently, the system being used by the fire service (suppression) have the follow classifications for the cause of ignition. They are Intentional, Unintentional, Failure of equipment or heat source, Act of nature, Cause under investigation, and Cause undetermined after investigation. As an addition to this section they have two sections to add information as to Factors and Human Factors Contributing to Ignition. The investigation section, if an investigation was conducted, will addresses specific areas dealing with a deliberately set fire, such as Case Status, Availability of Material First Ignited, Suspected Motivation Factors, Apparent Group Involvement, Incendiary Devices, among others. My question is, has the fire departments taken this information process to another level and have advanced past the simple accidental, incendiary, or undetermined classifications.

To me, here again is a profession dealing with fires unable to agree even on terminology. The public sector, to some degree, uses the terminology from NIFRS. Based on the fact that NIFRS is a Federal Government project, that is taught, funded and used by the government to collect data on fire causes, one would think this would be the industry standard for termonology. Most state and fire departments use this terminology. For some reason the fire investigation community wants to remain with the terminology that has been used for decades. My question would be who is advancing the profession and who wants to remain in their comfort zone.

Dan, I believe the more descriptive approach is the best and that accidental, incendiary need to disappear.