Reference
The Future of Fire Investigation - Science over Experience
By Mark Hughes, P. Eng.
© 2002 Sintra Engineering Inc.
I read a report prepared by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) that was a white paper on post fire analysis. The white paper made some statements that were interesting but a little contentious to those who actively investigate fires. The focus of the paper was to try to help improve the technical aspects of fire investigation. It reviewed the current knowledge base and techniques of fire investigation and came up with some preliminary recommendations.
To provide a bit of context, the IAAI has, in the past, stated that what fire investigators do is more of an art than a science. They did this in the past to try to minimize Daubert challenges. Daubert (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579.), if you don't know, was a very high profile case in the US where one of the experts put forward an opinion based upon very questionable science. When that expert's theories were challenged, his opinion was thrown out of court. More importantly, it set the standard by which expert testimony can be entered into US courts. By claiming that fire investigation was more art than science, the IAAI argued that the Daubert principles could not be applied. This pitted some members against each other depending upon their backgrounds.
Currently, many fires are investigated using experience to determine the origin and cause of a fire. Science refers to an approach where theories can be tested with repeatable results. Because of the nature of fires, restarting a fire is usually very problematic meaning that testing theories is difficult and expensive. Most science is assumed to be deductive whereas fire investigation is inductive. Investigators necessarily have to go beyond the available just evidence in order to draw their conclusions.
Getting back to the white paper, there were a number of interesting conclusions reached. The white paper reviewed several key areas including origin/cause investigation methods and education/training. The report the implied that fire investigators are insufficiently scientific in their approach and that in general they are poorly trained. It covered a lot of other areas, but these were the most contentious.
While I think that fire investigation is slowly getting more scientific
in approach and what can be done, the authors in the report seem to criticize
fire investigators for previous errors in judgment (e.g. saggy springs =
accelerant in car fires) which have proven false over time. While this is
a reasonable historical perspective, in think that in general fire investigators
have learned from their mistakes and improved their techniques accordingly.
Similarly training has improved tremendously but like any industry, there
is always room for improvement. I think the committee overstates the problems.
return to Reference articles...
