When it comes to fire trucks, those who use them and buy them know them best. It was with that in mind that we invited two industry experts to share their apparatus wisdom. Our panel includes Robert Avsec, FireRescue1’s resident product expert and a retired battalion chief, and Dennis Rubin, retired metropolitan fire chief and author.
What has been the most profound improvement to fire apparatus in the last five years?
Avsec: A couple of things come to mind. One is the emphasis that’s been placed on making the interior of the crew compartment safer for all of the occupants. The improved restraint belt technology and the introduction of airbags have been quantum leaps for improvements in that area.
Meet the Experts
Robert Avsec is FireRescue1’s product expert and a retired fire officer.
Dennis Rubin is a retired fire chief and author.
|
The other has been the introduction of LED emergency lighting. In our desire to make our vehicles as visible as possible while responding to calls, and on the emergency scene, we reached a point where the electrical system had become the primary point of failure.
In my former department, Chesterfield (Va.) Fire and EMS, our newest vehicles always seemed to be headed to the maintenance shop because of electrical problems, many of which were linked to the vehicle alternator being unable to handle the electrical demands.
Rubin: CAFS has become a rapid way to be more effective, efficient and safe while extinguishing an unfriendly fire inside of a building. CAFS’s ability to extinguish an interior structural fire is nearly 20 times more effective than water. Couple the need for greater efficiency with the scientific data that is being produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology regarding flashover and heat release, makes CAFS highly desirable. This system should win a place on your fire apparatus specifications sheet.
The other profound fire apparatus improvement that I witnessed has been with the aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicles. I was directly involved in the procurement of the new ARFF unit that now protects Marine 1 at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The design and capabilities of these specialized vehicles has seen mind-boggling improvements over the past few years. From the foam-delivery system improvements, to a single operator with 360-degree vision from the driver’s seat, to controlled environment in the operator’s cab area, these monster-looking fire trucks are amazing rides.
What profound improvement do you hope to see in the next five years?
Rubin: The number one concern that I have is the need to develop a complete and total passive passenger-restraining system. It is obvious that when self-contained breathing apparatus are mounted in the personnel compartment, there will be cheating on buckling the seatbelt. Therefore, I would ask the manufactures to please design a system that doesn’t require anything of the members on board, except to sit down, to be properly restrained on the rig.
Along with this hope is the need to remove all SCBA’s from the riding spaces. The notion that SCBA inside the riding space is safe is not logical or true from any standpoint. If every fire department went to side compartment mounted SCBA, the job of firefighter would get a little safer and that change easier to swallow.
Avsec: I would like to see more departments spec their apparatus based on what they need to accomplish tactically. I remember reading several times over my career where NFPA states that approximately 90 percent of structural fires are extinguished with 100 gallons of water or less. Don’t know how accurate that statement is, but I do know from anecdotal experience that we always seemed to drain more water from fire hose before repacking it than we used to extinguish the fire in most cases.
This is an even greater consideration when specing aerial apparatus. I’ve seen many instances where a department buys a 100-foot heavy-duty aerial device and they don’t have buildings in their district that exceed three or four stories.
What improvement is needed that may not be physically or technically possible today?
Avsec: Reduce the height of fire apparatus. The manufacturers are making it very difficult to be a short-of-stature firefighter. I’m five-foot-four-inches tall and late in my career it was becoming near impossible for me to remove ground ladders unless they were on an automated ladder rack.
We put men on the moon — and just landed a rover the size of a car on Mars — surely we can design functional fire apparatus that doesn’t require ground ladders to reach hose, ladders, etc.
Rubin: Again, passenger restraint. It may not be technically possible at this time, however, I hold out hope as I see amusement park roller coasters incorporate the types of systems that I have envisioned for big red.
Next, I can see the day when the entire fire truck has the chevron or locomotive stripes on all four sides of the vehicle for visibility when operating in traffic. The barrier here will not be technical or physical, but human. This time I am voting with the firefighters. Give me big red anytime and all of the time.
The last improvement that I would suggest is that our fire trucks and ambulances be able to take over the radio and speaker systems inside all vehicles on the road. First, we could announce our impending presence during an emergency response. And, of course, we would have another mechanism to communicate with folks who are experiencing an emergency inside of their vehicle. The harbor tunnel takes over my radio when I am cruising through, so why not us?
What was the first fire truck you ever rode on?
Avsec: I was first assigned to a cab-over Ford commercial chassis pumper when I joined the James City County (Va.) Fire Department in 1981. My first engine with jump seats under a canopy was a 1976 Mack pumper that I was assigned to at Engine Company 11 with Chesterfield Fire and EMS in 1982.
Rubin: At the risk of giving up my years of seniority, it was a 1952 GMC 750-gpm triple-combination pumper. The chrome nose on that fire truck stuck out several feet and was an amazing feature that set this rig apart from all others, past and present. It seems like yesterday that Engine 41 was delivered to the firehouse and captured the imagination of one little boy that would count the days until he (me) could be hanging off the back step rail.
Of course, no one should be riding back there now for all of the safety reasons in this world. But just the same, I am glad to have spent about 15 years of my career as a true back-step fireman. If I win the lottery, I am finding this piece of sweet Detroit steel and returning her to the glory.
How important is cost of ownership when specing a new apparatus?
Rubin: Because we should be good stewards of the hard-earned taxpayer dollars, the bottom line seems to be the one that we go with to make a large purchase.
There are many other factors that must have more weight in making the decision to purchase such a mission-critical item as fire apparatus. Equipment reliability and longevity are the first two factors that come to mind. The vehicle needs to perform 100 percent of the time when called upon.
Next, the average fire truck is retained for service for at least 10 to 15 years and maybe more. When you amortize the extra cost over that timeline, the value becomes clear when buying a truck that will be operational with less maintenance over a long time frame.
When buying the most critical element of the operation, don’t be penny wise and pound foolish with your budget dollars. Just like with our people, take more time hiring and training because you will need them for a 30-year career; flashes in the pan don’t work out as firefighters or fire trucks.
Avsec: This is a huge consideration given the fiscal constraints that all departments are finding themselves in today. The really smart fire service managers are going to be those folks who start buying fire apparatus like they would a personal automobile. That is, they’ll become better comparison shoppers before they start specing their apparatus by looking: at reliability, service after the sale, cost to operate, cost to maintain, etc.
And by comparison shopping, I don’t mean relying on what the manufacturers or vendors tell them. Develop recordkeeping systems that enable you to know these things for your current fleet. Form and join user groups, and network with other departments that use similar apparatus and share information. Do your due diligence.
What are the top two things that must be considered when selecting a new apparatus?
Avsec: Align your community’s fire risk with the apparatus that you spec. Purchase apparatus that provides the capabilities that your department needs to handle the 90 percentile of calls you respond to annually, not the 10 percent that happen maybe once every 10 years. We still spec fire apparatus primarily as a fire truck when 70 percent or more of a department’s calls are for EMS and other non-fire emergencies.
I go back to the cost-to-own question. I think this is going to be a major consideration for all departments from here on out.
Rubin: Get the people that are going to use them directly involved in the process. I love a GMC truck, but since about 1987, I have been assigned a car to respond to alarms. So, the folks using the apparatus should have a lot of say as to what you specify and purchase for apparatus. Getting the members “fingerprints on the knife” is just about always a very good thing. Sit back and enjoy the buy-in.
The last concern is that you must follow the rules, regulations and laws that are set forth by your community. When I say the cheapest truck may not be the best for your department, most likely that will take you a day or two to complete the justification paperwork to purchase the more expensive truck.
Make sure that it gets completed along with any other requirement that your community sets forth in policy or law. If you don’t know the details, find someone who does and get their advice before proceeding to get into real trouble.
Finally, it goes without saying, but if the apparatus sales staff wants to take you on a golf outing or to the next jam-up rock concert, just say no. What would the Washington Post do with that tidbit?