By Alan M. Petrillo

The United States Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR) Biorobotics Program, working in cooperation with engineering students and faculty at Virginia Tech University and the University of Pennsylvania, has developed an adult-sized, humanoid robot that carries a hose to fight live fires aboard U.S. Navy ships.

SAFFiR

The Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR) is constructed from aluminum; stands five feet, 10 inches tall; weighs 170 pounds; and can send a one-inch blast of water at flames without stopping, faltering, or falling.

SAFFiR uses three types of sensors to navigate the spaces of a ship and locate the source of a fire, says Tom McKenna, PhD, program officer for the ONR Biorobotics Program. “SAFFiR uses a digital camera and a thermal imaging unit to see through the smoke and to detect heat and a scanning radar to allow for accurate mapping,” McKenna says. “The robot has 33-degree freedom of movement; it can walk, bend its legs, swivel its head, hold a hose, and operate a hose with its hands.”

1 This five-foot, 10-inch-tall robot, designated the Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR), successfully demonstrated its firefighting ability aboard a U.S. Navy testing facility. The robot is being developed by the Navy’s Office of Naval Research Biorobotics Program and Virginia Tech University. (Photos courtesy of Virginia Tech University.)

In 2014, ONR put SAFFiR through a demonstration test aboard the USS Shadwell, a U.S. Navy experimental facility that has a fire control laboratory where suppression technologies can be demonstrated on live fires. During the demonstration, SAFFiR carried a one-inch hoseline and nozzle to suppress a fire using a concentration of water and foam. McKenna points out that SAFFiR has not been fire-hardened yet. “The robot was standing at the door of the compartment when it was suppressing the fire on the USS Shadwell,” he says. “But, all the personal protection equipment that human firefighters use to fight fires can be applied to the robot too.”

Dennis Hong, PhD, a professor at UCLA and founder of its Robotics & Mechanisms Laboratory (RoMeLa), helped develop SAFFiR when he was a professor at Virginia Tech. Hong notes that the shipboard environment is designed by humans for humans. “Hallways are very narrow, there are sharp 90-degree turns, ladders and stairways are impediments-all of which are an impossible environment for wheels or tank treads,” Hong says. “So, we designed a humanoid robot that could go everywhere on a ship that a human could.”

2 Brian Lattimer, vice president of research and development for Jensen Hughes and affiliate professor and principal investigator Read more 338 0 Article rating: No rating Posted: Feb 11, 2016 A "Hot Mess" By Robert Tutterow “Hot Mess” describes the current state of firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE) above the shoulder area. For context, the first of 11 statements issued by the Firefighter Cancer Support Network paper titled, “Taking Action Against Cancer in the Fire Service-WHAT IMMEDIATE ACTIONS CAN I TAKE TO PROTECT MYSELF,” states: “Use [self-contained breathing apparatus] SCBA from initial attack to finish of overhaul. (Not wearing SCBA in both active and post-fire environments is the most dangerous voluntary activity in the fire service today.)” For years, it was believed that heart attacks were the leading firefighter killers. Today we know the biggest killer is cancer. And, now for the hot mess: the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committee for structural and proximity firefighting protective clothing and equipment met last September. Among the many public inputs (proposals) were a few to take face shields, flip-downs, and goggles off helmets. All of the proposals were rejected (resolved). However, an examination of the intent is in order. The current version of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, states that there are six components to a helmet: shell; energy absorbing system; retention system; fluorescent and retroreflective trim; ear covers; and a faceshield, goggles, or both. Goggles Goggles are far superior for eye protection than face shields and flip-downs. No firefighter should be without goggles that meet American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association (ANSI/ISEA) Z87.1, American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices. They are crucial for activities that do not require an SCBA face piece. By the way, the SCBA face piece provides excellent eye and full-face protection. However, there is an inherent cancer risk if the goggles are attached to the helmet. When stowed on the helmet, they are subject to all the carcinogens found in the firefighting environment. Then, when needed, they are applied directly to skin of the firefighter. It is known that the head area is the most vulnerable place for carcinogens to enter the body. To underscore this risk, the third statement of the 11 states: “Use Wet-Nap or baby wipes to remove as much soot as possible from head, neck, jaw, throat, underarms, and hands immediately and while still on the scene.” In addition, when attached to the helmet, they are subject to scratches and abrasions in the fire environment as well as during other routine activities such as the simple task of removing the helmet in and out of a locker or other place of storage. NFPA 1971 also states that “Goggles shall be permitted to be unattached, not assembled to the helmet.” Storing goggles in a place other than the helmet is compliant with NFPA. It is my opinion that goggles should never be stored on the helmet. At best, this is an afterthought attachment that adds to the helmet’s weight and overall profile. Face Shields NFPA 1971 requires that if a face shield is used-there has to be a face shield, goggles, or both-it “shall be attached to the helmet.” There are several negative aspects of current face shields. They provide only partial protection. However, in my opinion, “partial” protection should never be allowed in an NFPA PPE standard. How does partial face protection protect your eyes when a pressurized hydraulic line ruptures? I understand limited protection because all elements have their limits. They also add unnecessary weight and increase the helmet’s profile. They adversely impact the helmet’s center of gravity and create the “bobblehead” effect. They are rarely main Read more 457 0 Article rating: No rating Posted: Feb 11, 2016 A "Hot Mess" By Robert Tutterow “Hot Mess” describes the current state of firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE) above the shoulder area. For context, the first of 11 statements issued by the Firefighter Cancer Support Network paper titled, “Taking Action Against Cancer in the Fire Service-WHAT IMMEDIATE ACTIONS CAN I TAKE TO PROTECT MYSELF,” states: “Use [self-contained breathing apparatus] SCBA from initial attack to finish of overhaul. (Not wearing SCBA in both active and post-fire environments is the most dangerous voluntary activity in the fire service today.)” For years, it was believed that heart attacks were the leading firefighter killers. Today we know the biggest killer is cancer. And, now for the hot mess: the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committee for structural and proximity firefighting protective clothing and equipment met last September. Among the many public inputs (proposals) were a few to take face shields, flip-downs, and goggles off helmets. All of the proposals were rejected (resolved). However, an examination of the intent is in order. The current version of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, states that there are six components to a helmet: shell; energy absorbing system; retention system; fluorescent and retroreflective trim; ear covers; and a faceshield, goggles, or both. Goggles Goggles are far superior for eye protection than face shields and flip-downs. No firefighter should be without goggles that meet American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association (ANSI/ISEA) Z87.1, American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices. They are crucial for activities that do not require an SCBA face piece. By the way, the SCBA face piece provides excellent eye and full-face protection. However, there is an inherent cancer risk if the goggles are attached to the helmet. When stowed on the helmet, they are subject to all the carcinogens found in the firefighting environment. Then, when needed, they are applied directly to skin of the firefighter. It is known that the head area is the most vulnerable place for carcinogens to enter the body. To underscore this risk, the third statement of the 11 states: “Use Wet-Nap or baby wipes to remove as much soot as possible from head, neck, jaw, throat, underarms, and hands immediately and while still on the scene.” In addition, when attached to the helmet, they are subject to scratches and abrasions in the fire environment as well as during other routine activities such as the simple task of removing the helmet in and out of a locker or other place of storage. NFPA 1971 also states that “Goggles shall be permitted to be unattached, not assembled to the helmet.” Storing goggles in a place other than the helmet is compliant with NFPA. It is my opinion that goggles should never be stored on the helmet. At best, this is an afterthought attachment that adds to the helmet’s weight and overall profile. Face Shields NFPA 1971 requires that if a face shield is used-there has to be a face shield, goggles, or both-it “shall be attached to the helmet.” There are several negative aspects of current face shields. They provide only partial protection. However, in my opinion, “partial” protection should never be allowed in an NFPA PPE standard. How does partial face protection protect your eyes when a pressurized hydraulic line ruptures? I understand limited protection because all elements have their limits. They also add unnecessary weight and increase the helmet’s profile. They adversely impact the helmet’s center of gravity and create the “bobblehead” effect. They are rarely main Read more 477 0 Article rating: No rating Posted: Feb 11, 2016 A "Hot Mess" By Robert Tutterow “Hot Mess” describes the current state of firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE) above the shoulder area. For context, the first of 11 statements issued by the Firefighter Cancer Support Network paper titled, “Taking Action Against Cancer in the Fire Service-WHAT IMMEDIATE ACTIONS CAN I TAKE TO PROTECT MYSELF,” states: “Use [self-contained breathing apparatus] SCBA from initial attack to finish of overhaul. (Not wearing SCBA in both active and post-fire environments is the most dangerous voluntary activity in the fire service today.)” For years, it was believed that heart attacks were the leading firefighter killers. Today we know the biggest killer is cancer. And, now for the hot mess: the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committee for structural and proximity firefighting protective clothing and equipment met last September. Among the many public inputs (proposals) were a few to take face shields, flip-downs, and goggles off helmets. All of the proposals were rejected (resolved). However, an examination of the intent is in order. The current version of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, states that there are six components to a helmet: shell; energy absorbing system; retention system; fluorescent and retroreflective trim; ear covers; and a faceshield, goggles, or both. Goggles Goggles are far superior for eye protection than face shields and flip-downs. No firefighter should be without goggles that meet American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association (ANSI/ISEA) Z87.1, American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices. They are crucial for activities that do not require an SCBA face piece. By the way, the SCBA face piece provides excellent eye and full-face protection. However, there is an inherent cancer risk if the goggles are attached to the helmet. When stowed on the helmet, they are subject to all the carcinogens found in the firefighting environment. Then, when needed, they are applied directly to skin of the firefighter. It is known that the head area is the most vulnerable place for carcinogens to enter the body. To underscore this risk, the third statement of the 11 states: “Use Wet-Nap or baby wipes to remove as much soot as possible from head, neck, jaw, throat, underarms, and hands immediately and while still on the scene.” In addition, when attached to the helmet, they are subject to scratches and abrasions in the fire environment as well as during other routine activities such as the simple task of removing the helmet in and out of a locker or other place of storage. NFPA 1971 also states that “Goggles shall be permitted to be unattached, not assembled to the helmet.” Storing goggles in a place other than the helmet is compliant with NFPA. It is my opinion that goggles should never be stored on the helmet. At best, this is an afterthought attachment that adds to the helmet’s weight and overall profile. Face Shields NFPA 1971 requires that if a face shield is used-there has to be a face shield, goggles, or both-it “shall be attached to the helmet.” There are several negative aspects of current face shields. They provide only partial protection. However, in my opinion, “partial” protection should never be allowed in an NFPA PPE standard. How does partial face protection protect your eyes when a pressurized hydraulic line ruptures? I understand limited protection because all elements have their limits. They also add unnecessary weight and increase the helmet’s profile. They adversely impact the helmet’s center of gravity and create the “bobblehead” effect. They are rarely main Read more 401 0 Article rating: No rating RSS FirstPrevious4334433543364337433843394340434143424343NextLast Theme picker Section Quick Links   Fire Mechanics Documents EVT Discussion Forum Fire Mechanic Photo Gallery Training & Testing 2019 Scholarship Logo Wear Store Upcoming Events Theme picker Sponsors Fire Mechanics Section Board Chair Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Chair Elliot Courage North Whatcom Fire & Rescue Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Vice Chair Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Vice Chair Mike Smith  Pierce County Fire District #5 Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Secretary Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Secretary Greg Bach South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Director #1 Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Director #1 Doug Jones South Kitsap Fire & Rescue Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Director #2 Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Director #2 Paul Spencer  Fire Fleet Maintenance LLC Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Director #3 Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Director #3 Jim Morris Mountain View Fire Department Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Director #4 Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Director #4 Arnie Kuchta Clark County Fire District 6 Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Director #6 Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Director #6 Brett Annear Kitsap County Fire District 18 Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Director #5 Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Director #5 Jay Jacks Camano Island Fire & Rescue Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating Legislative Representative Posted: Oct 21, 2015 Legislative Representative TBD TBD Read more 3254 0 Article rating: No rating Immediate Past Chair Posted: Oct 20, 2015 Immediate Past Chair Brian Fortner Graham Fire & Rescue Read more 0 0 Article rating: No rating RSS Theme picker 2020 CAR SHOW Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement - Copyright 2024 by Washington Fire Chiefs Home Members About Us News Calendar Resources Documents Sections County Fire Chiefs FRWC WSAFM