Christopher Curko, CSC Docket No. 2022-2942

BackgroundChristopher Curko appeals the correct response to question 40 on the promotional examination for Battalion Fire Chief (PM3385C), Hoboken.

It is noted for the record that this two-part examination consisted of a written multiple-choice portion and an oral portion. The written examination was administered on January 27, 2022. The appellant appealed the correct answer to question 40.

CONCLUSION

Question 40 asked if vertical ventilation should be performed at this incident, and the keyed response was option a, yes, at the C/D corner. The appellant selected option d, no, vertical ventilation should not be done at this incident. In support, he states that there are heavy loads on the roof, he would be cutting directly over the fire, and it is lightweight construction with a lightweight steel truss. Additionally, he states that question 44 indicates that the side c wall is starting to lean, which is a sign of a collapse.

Further, he argues that type 2 structures require different tactics to some of the questions and keyed answers given in the scenario. He states that in the diagram of the building, the restaurant measured 50 x 75 feet, and this length and width of the building indicated light weight steel truss or potentially wood truss construction. He states that there was no load bearing wall or columns indicated in the diagram to hold the weight to indicate the presence of solid wood constructed roof assembly, and the aerial view of the restaurant indicated the presence of heavy HVAC and/or kitchen exhaust systems on the roof. He states that references indicate that: firefighters should not operate above a fire on a roof if the roof construction is not known; an exposed steel bar joist system can collapse after 5 to 10 minutes of exposure; in any building with steel bar joists supporting the roof, horizontal ventilation of windows and doors in advance of hose lines is preferred over vertical ventilation; metal deck roofs are dangerous to operate on over a fire, especially with a concentrated load of the air conditioner, they will fail in as little as five minutes of fire exposure and that roof cutting should not take place over the fire; precautions about not cutting the roof over the fire and the extra care not falling through the hole all still apply to a metal deck fire; firefighters should not be committed to bar joist supported metal deck roof due to the danger of early collapse; the primary hazard to the roof firefighters is the danger of falling into the ventilation hole while they are cutting it by design of the metal deck and the spacing of the bar joists; every fast food restaurant must be assumed to be of light weight construction until proven otherwise, and thus, in danger of early collapse if any substantial fire is present; and older flat roofs have wooden beams as main support beams spaced 16 inches apart and can carry the same load as the floor below them.

In reply, there is no description of the roof in the scenario. The diagrams indicate that there may be weight on the roof near side A, although these could be plumbing vents. Nothing else can anything be seen, or was indicated to be, heavy HVAC and/or kitchen exhaust systems on the roof. The description stated that the restaurant was built in 1965. No support columns are needed as the building has two halves, the front half being closest to side A the sitting area and bar, and the back half being closest to side C the bathrooms and kitchen. The wall where the two halves meets runs the entire 75-foot width of the building. This wall runs directly through the span of the building at almost the exact mid-point, and would be a load bearing wall, along with the walls on sides A and C. Thus, the appellant is incorrect in stating that there are no load bearing walls in the structure.

Next, question 40 asked if vertical ventilation should be performed at this incident. It did not state that firefighters would be put on the roof. The key refers to the side C/D corner, along the perimeter of the roof, not the center of the roof. This ventilation could be done off of the ladder from the first alarm, which can be placed outside of the collapse zone. The keyed answer weighs both firefighter safety and ventilation, while the appellant’s choice does not address ventilation. A cut should be over the fire. While there is not much time with lightweight wooden truss, steel lasts longer. In question 44, the wall begins to lean. This is later in the scene, and after the decision whether to vertically ventilate needs to be made. As such, information in the subsequent question, 44, should not be a factor in the determination of whether vertical ventilation should be performed at that point in time. The keyed response will not be changed.

A thorough review of the record indicates that the determination of the Division of Test Development, Analytics and Administration was proper and consistent with civil service regulations, and that the appellant has not met his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.