Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: New National Fire Protection Association's 921
Posted by: J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: January 08, 2020 02:16PM
Text in the new proposed edition addresses NIFRS. It states that NIFRS is outside the scope of the document and that NIFRS is an incident report and not an investigation report. It states the NIFRS report should not be used as an investigation report.
Where the document still defines different disciplines it does not define fire investigator.
The committee believes that Chapter 4 was not the appropriate chapter for additional explanation and discussion on the testing a hypothesis even though this is the first place this term is used. The additional explanation would have been, “Any hypothesis that is incapable of being tested either physically or analytically, is an invalid hypothesis. A hypothesis developed based on the absence of data is an example of a hypothesis that is incapable of being tested. Another example of an untestable hypothesis is a final hypothesis (conclusion) where an igntion source is characterized as "an open flame" and where the first fuel is characterized as "a combustible material." The inability to refute a hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is true.” The committee felt this was sufficiently covered in 19.6.4 and 19.6.5.
The committee voted to remove all shall statements in chapter 8.
It appears there was some work done to section 8.3.2 Key Components of Systems (Alarm Systems). Chapter 8 is good for a quick review.
There was some changes in the wording section 9.12.8.3.1.
In chapter 11 they talk about children and fires. For some reason they want to limit this discussion to children. There was a suggestion to add other specific types of individual, such as firefighters, but the committee rejected this idea.
In Section 17.3.5.3.5 Use of Power Tool, the committee rejected the proposal that the document should have addition text in that section that would read as follows. The use of gasoline - or diesel - powered tools and equipment in the area were the fire is believed to have originated should not be controlled carefully in certain locations. The refueling of any fuel-powered equipment or tools should be done outside the perimeter of allowed. This type of equipment can lead to the contamination of samples. The use of this type of equipment should be carefully controlled to ensure there is no contamination of the scene. Whenever possible, this type of equipment should be operated and maintained only outside the fire scene. Whenever fuel-powered equipment is used on the fire scene, its use and location should be documented in the investigator's notes and the investigator advisedreport. It is the investigator's responsibility to know the type of equipment to be used in the investigation and its potential for contamination.
The committee’s justification for not including the additional text was, “Limiting equipment to the scene is too broad a determination. However, the committee agrees that the use of equipment could be a source of contamination and needs to be emphasized.” I do not understand how not allowing the use of this type of equipment in the area the fire has believed to have started is too broad of a recommendation.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
Where the document still defines different disciplines it does not define fire investigator.
The committee believes that Chapter 4 was not the appropriate chapter for additional explanation and discussion on the testing a hypothesis even though this is the first place this term is used. The additional explanation would have been, “Any hypothesis that is incapable of being tested either physically or analytically, is an invalid hypothesis. A hypothesis developed based on the absence of data is an example of a hypothesis that is incapable of being tested. Another example of an untestable hypothesis is a final hypothesis (conclusion) where an igntion source is characterized as "an open flame" and where the first fuel is characterized as "a combustible material." The inability to refute a hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is true.” The committee felt this was sufficiently covered in 19.6.4 and 19.6.5.
The committee voted to remove all shall statements in chapter 8.
It appears there was some work done to section 8.3.2 Key Components of Systems (Alarm Systems). Chapter 8 is good for a quick review.
There was some changes in the wording section 9.12.8.3.1.
In chapter 11 they talk about children and fires. For some reason they want to limit this discussion to children. There was a suggestion to add other specific types of individual, such as firefighters, but the committee rejected this idea.
In Section 17.3.5.3.5 Use of Power Tool, the committee rejected the proposal that the document should have addition text in that section that would read as follows. The use of gasoline - or diesel - powered tools and equipment in the area were the fire is believed to have originated should not be controlled carefully in certain locations. The refueling of any fuel-powered equipment or tools should be done outside the perimeter of allowed. This type of equipment can lead to the contamination of samples. The use of this type of equipment should be carefully controlled to ensure there is no contamination of the scene. Whenever possible, this type of equipment should be operated and maintained only outside the fire scene. Whenever fuel-powered equipment is used on the fire scene, its use and location should be documented in the investigator's notes and the investigator advisedreport. It is the investigator's responsibility to know the type of equipment to be used in the investigation and its potential for contamination.
The committee’s justification for not including the additional text was, “Limiting equipment to the scene is too broad a determination. However, the committee agrees that the use of equipment could be a source of contamination and needs to be emphasized.” I do not understand how not allowing the use of this type of equipment in the area the fire has believed to have started is too broad of a recommendation.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.