History of Fire Shelter development

Protective fire shelters were developed simultaneously in Australia and the United States during the late 1950s. The final design of a low A-tent constructed of aluminium foil bonded to fibre-glass, a design established by Australian research (King 1962), went into production in both countries around about 1963. In Australia the tent was withdrawn from the market in 1967. A manufacturing error produced a highly flammable resin inside the tent and during a field test an occupant received severe burns. The manufacturer considered that quality control of the materials could not be guaranteed; that the likely market was small; and that it would be prudent to withdraw from production. In the US, on the other hand, personal fire shelters are issued to all firefighters as standard equipment (estimated at more than 30,000 per year in 1986; Northcutt 1986 pers. comm.1). The carrying of fire shelters was made mandatory for USDA Forest Service crews in 1976 and by 1990 fire shelters had been attributed with saving 220 lives (Putnam 1991).

A casual comparison of the differences between the two countries might suggest that Australian fire authorities have not carefully considered the use of protective shelters for firefighters and perhaps should follow the path of our American counterparts. Through regular operational fire study tours of the USA and Canada since 1962 Australian Fire Control Officers have been familiar with the American situation and have expressed reservations about introducing protective shelters into Australia.

These reservations have to be examined in context. The officers represented the State forestry organisations that, at the time, were mostly responsible for fire suppression on forest land. Fire crews were mostly paid employees and there had been very few forest firefighter fatalities in Australia; a fact which was arguably attributable to good training/experience and conservative, safe work practices. Volunteer rural firefighters were largely involved in grass and scrub firefighting where it was considered that properly designed tankers would provide better protection than a personal protective shelter.

Other considerations may have been:

• the cost of providing equipment of dubious reliability;
• a perception that the providing "survival" equipment would encourage risk taking and mitigate against safe work practices; and,
• concern that they were providing equipment without knowing the limits of its effectiveness except that it would fail under extreme conditions.

Until recently fire shelters could not withstand direct flame contact and there was little information as to the size of the clearing required for successful deployment. Currently new materials are under investigation which can withstand direct flame contact and perhaps it is time to re-examine the performance of fire shelters under Australian conditions.