Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
Attachments: P1010050.JPG (188.6kB)
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: Compiling of Unreliable Indicators
Posted by: Chris Bloom, CJBFireConsultant (IP Logged)
Date: November 12, 2020 01:13PM
James. Believe me I totally understand.
My point is, and I had this same fight with many other TC members including Kennedy, that your personal interpretations of the document are just that. When people read these discussions, they can be incorrectly interpreted as gospel from the 921 TC. Until there is a formal interpretation, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the content of the document.
I have explained here, and again to you in private, that it is MY OPINION that no one should SOLELY use V-patterns and area of most intense damage as the basis of determining origin and cause. I agree with Doug that this would not be a proper application of the Scientific Method, and doesn't conform to NFPA 921 recommended practices. I raise again the recent run of fires I posted a query about here on the forum (see attached photo). We have been seeing a recent rash of propane regulator failures causing propane fires at individual appliances. The area of most intense damage is localized (as can be seen in the photo), resulting in ONE distinct v-pattern. The "cause" of the fire can be inferred from exhaust gases (from the ignition of propane gas from normal operation of the appliance) heating the surrounding combustibles. However, following the scientific method further, the "PROXIMAL" cause of the incident is actually due to a failure of the propane regulator (about 20 feet away), causing an excessive propane gas pressure which in turn generated higher flue gas temperatures than the system was designed for. You wouldn't know about this fact unless you Investigate it and test for it. This is proof that even on a fire this small, it is still appropriate and necessary to examine the rest of the coach and associated systems.
Again, after I have looked at all known aspects of the fire, I personally use the terms "area of most intense damage" and "v-pattern(s)" to SUMMARILY DESCRIBE my investigation (either in written or verbal briefings) to the client. However, I DO NOT use those patterns as the SOLE Basis for my investigation.
Chris
My point is, and I had this same fight with many other TC members including Kennedy, that your personal interpretations of the document are just that. When people read these discussions, they can be incorrectly interpreted as gospel from the 921 TC. Until there is a formal interpretation, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the content of the document.
I have explained here, and again to you in private, that it is MY OPINION that no one should SOLELY use V-patterns and area of most intense damage as the basis of determining origin and cause. I agree with Doug that this would not be a proper application of the Scientific Method, and doesn't conform to NFPA 921 recommended practices. I raise again the recent run of fires I posted a query about here on the forum (see attached photo). We have been seeing a recent rash of propane regulator failures causing propane fires at individual appliances. The area of most intense damage is localized (as can be seen in the photo), resulting in ONE distinct v-pattern. The "cause" of the fire can be inferred from exhaust gases (from the ignition of propane gas from normal operation of the appliance) heating the surrounding combustibles. However, following the scientific method further, the "PROXIMAL" cause of the incident is actually due to a failure of the propane regulator (about 20 feet away), causing an excessive propane gas pressure which in turn generated higher flue gas temperatures than the system was designed for. You wouldn't know about this fact unless you Investigate it and test for it. This is proof that even on a fire this small, it is still appropriate and necessary to examine the rest of the coach and associated systems.
Again, after I have looked at all known aspects of the fire, I personally use the terms "area of most intense damage" and "v-pattern(s)" to SUMMARILY DESCRIBE my investigation (either in written or verbal briefings) to the client. However, I DO NOT use those patterns as the SOLE Basis for my investigation.
Chris
Attachments: P1010050.JPG (188.6kB)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.