Apparatus Interoperabilty And Large Volunteer Departments

[x635 4,066]

I don't know why it's caught my attention now, but why do large volunteer fire departments with multiple companies spec such vastly different apparatus?

You would think that they would want to keep things as uniform as possible? And I'm not talking superficial things-diffrent colors and emblems are fine in my eyes......I'm talking about hosebed layout, tool mounting, drivers controls, etc.

Also, from a maintainence standpoint, it would be a lot easier to become familiar with apparatus maintainence and maintain spare parts.

There's enough you need to know to fight a fire. A learning curve such as the one described above should be uneccesary.

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't know why it's caught my attention now, but why do large volunteer fire departments with multiple companies spec such vastly different apparatus?

You would think that they would want to keep things as uniform as possible? And I'm not talking superficial things-diffrent colors and emblems are fine in my eyes......I'm talking about hosebed layout, tool mounting, drivers controls, etc.

Also, from a maintainence standpoint, it would be a lot easier to become familiar with apparatus maintainence and maintain spare parts.

There's enough you need to know to fight a fire. A learning curve such as the one described above should be uneccesary.

Tradition and age old rivalries.

[SteveOFD 176]

At least with the FD's I have been a member of, when an apparatus is due for replacement, that individual Company forms an Apparatus Committee. This Committee will spec out an apparatus that the Committee feels will provide what that Company will need in its' first due response area.

Sometimes it works and it will provide a well designed apparatus. Other times (more often than I care to speculate) it is because "that" other Company(either within the Department or a neighboring FD) has "S" or "P" brand and we want the same thing only newer and better.

Although I agree with your point about standardizing, it has been my experience that individual Company's are "protective" of their apparatus and very few Apparatus Drivers actually get to operate other Company's apparatus even though we know when you have been trained on one apparatus it is not very difficult to operate another Company's rig.

[x635 4,066]

But, put it this way. FDNY and Yonkers, for example, serve diverse neighborhoods with basically the same engine all around. There are volunteer communities that are hydranted that have completly different engines for no explainable purpose. I understand what works best for your first due, but in today's volunteer world, "First Due" isn't really a reliable indicator to apparatus response.

[markmets415 524]

When we spec our apparatus it is spec'd to what it is replacing but with the newer technology.

When we have a source pumper that goes to water so it has a large pump (1500 gpm) and carries alot of LDH (2500' of 5"), this also goes to grass/brush fires so it is equipped with a class A foam system.

Our attack engine is setup with packs/tools and several attack lines with a moderate size pump: 1250 and 1000 gal. booster tank, this the next rig to be replaced so we have talked of the same type setup with adding a CAFS.

The tanker was the last one replaced and the old one had 2000 tank, new one 3000, both equipped with 3-10" dumps.

Bottom line we try to have the vehicle serve in a designed role. We are also lucky enough to have several M/A companies very close so if we have a rig down it is pretty easy to have a M/A rig fill a role.

Edited November 15, 2008 by markmets415

[Danger 160]

Our district (combo) has 8 Engines, all basically the same make and layout.

[SteveOFD 176]

I understand what works best for your first due, but in today's volunteer world, "First Due" isn't really a reliable indicator to apparatus response.

I agree. The problem, the way I see it, is that too many apparatus are designed to serve too many functions. As has been stated in other threads on this site, there is in my opinion, alot of duplication of equipment in Westchester Departments. It amounts to the argument that how many Cascade Systems or Jaws of Life tools or Tower Ladders are needed? Does every piece of apparatus need every piece of equipment? I know there is equipment/devices on apparatus that will be used a minimal amount of times during the apparatus' lifetime because other apparatus that respond on the initial assignment also have this same equipment on their apparatus. I am not against apparatus being designed with what they need for their primary function, but does every apparatus need every piece of equipment/device that is available within that Department or it's close M/A Departments?

Edited November 16, 2008 by SteveOFD

[FFPCogs 863]

Traditionally many volunteer FDs buy what they want, now this may or may not be exactly what is needed. And some departments suffer from the misconception that each new rig must be bigger, have a larger pump or be stuffed with more tools then what it replaces. Throw in a good salesman and it's a done deal. Remember too that many of the NFPA guidelines are developed by the apparatus manufacturers, so it is of course in their best interest to "suggest" what they believe best serves our needs.

Any who read my comments on this site know that I am a big fan of standardization whenever and where ever possible. Apparatus is one area from which we could all benefit in a number of ways by standarizing, but to many that is against the tradition of independent volunteer service.

In the end though so long as the needs of the departmment are met I guess a little overkill is ok.

A little off topic but another pet peeve of mine is the Quint concept without the practical means to apply it. A quint requires TWO operators, one for the stick (or bucket) and one for the pump in addition to it's normal compliment of firefighters. So buying a Quint to serve two functions without the means to accomplish them defeats the purpose for which it was intended. In Richmond or St. Louis where the concept is department procedure and all resources are trained and staffed to utilize them, Quints work well. When departments try to squeeze two rigs in one to save money or manpower, they usually end up with a rig that does neither function well...i.e. an engine without enough hose or a truck without a proper aerial.

The dinosaur that I am I still believe in dedicated truck, engine and rescue companies and personnel cross trained to operate them all effectively.

Cogs

[E58RET 24]

You GO cogs,I agree with you whole heartedly

[Guest FFNick]

Well stated, Cogs. I like the way Europe (and most of the rest of the world, for that matter) does it. All of the apparatus are pretty much standardized, so you do not see a lot of variety like we do here. That is not to say that they can not serve different functions (ie hydranted vs non-hydranted areas) there is just no need or desire to have the custom market like we have. Their aerials typically, though not always, only have a commercial cab, with no jump seats. Their engines predominately carry the manpower, with some utility/rescue type vehicles rounding out the compliment. I also tend to think that through our history and development, as mentioned above, volunteerism, pride and individuality have a lot to do with it. (No, this is not a dig on volunteers) It does amaze me when the same Town/City can have such different equipment with no better reason than "thats what we wanted".

There is a department near me that used to have 2 different brands of airpack between the 4 fire companies, which were not compatible at all. Talk about a mess - how big is that RIT kit?

[firefighter36 52]

Cogs, dead on. You summed it up well.

Is it PG County that lets the various stations & companies supply their own rig, or in lieu of that will supply a cookie-cutter, standarized engine? If so, what are the differences between the rigs that companies like Kentland, etc. use, and the County Version- Paint Color and lettering? or does it extend deeper into features such as pump, hoose, etc. Are there guidelines to what rigs must carry?

Also, do departments have the right types of vehicles for their area? I can think of a department that has no hydrants, that does not believe in tankers. Their tank water from 5 or 6 rigs is great for filling up supply hose, but after that, there is usually no water to actually put on the fire until m/a tankers are called in for a water suply operation.

Back to Cogs' comments- what good are the rigs if you don't have the people, or the demographics in your area to make them effective?

Just my .02

[markmets415 524]

Well said as always Cogs couldn't agree more.

[FFPCogs 863]

I think anyone who reads this thread and begins to wrap their head around the questions posed by Seth quickly will come to the conclusion that this is but the tip of the iceberg. The huge variety of rigs and the tendency of departments to buy what is wanted is just another symptom of what is really an across the board problem... the redundancy and wastefulness inherent in many areas of the fire service. I must confess that I may be one who strays too far to the side of "standardization" or the "professionalization" of the volunteer fire service. Be that as it may though it does truly amaze me that in the 21st century the age old rivalries (some over 100 years old) and fierce independence of some VFDs still overwhelmingly dictate how things are done. (Well there I go onto a host of blacklists ).

For me there's nothing wrong with independence or buying what you want so long as it is kept in the context of the overall needs of a community. An eye to the "big picture" I believe would better serve all.

I guess I'm a traditionalist in many areas having to do with tactical doctrines, the "work ethic" of VFDs and their members or in the validity of volunteering itself and honestly I'm proud of that stance. But I for one wish we could see a more unified or collective approach to the "nuts and bolts" of our day to day operations. Apparatus specs to fill the need being a great place to start.

Sorry to go off topic with yet another dissertation.

Cogs

Edited November 16, 2008 by FFPCogs

[markmets415 524]

Cogs you're not off topic at all.

How many times over and over do you see stuff purchased that makes no sense at all. With more and more depts struggling with the manpower situation we need to see what the depts around us are doing and maybe start jumping resources. For example, in my town there are two fire districts, the fire houes are 3 miles apart. The other dept will be taking delivery of a new CAFS engine. Now I love that technlogy but does it make sense for us to buy a CAFS pumper when at most structure fires in our district the M/A dept is there anyways. I guess one could argue that that rig may be o/o/s, well if it then we have put our fires for years without CAFS so I guess we would manage.

Shaking my head here, just can't see it, we all continue to buy apparatus and how many times do your hear 2nd and 3rd tones go out because they can't get off the floor. Enough ramdom thoughts from me.

Edited November 16, 2008 by markmets415

[Guest]

I know there are companies that go out and buy what they want because they have the money to do it ( not the reason to purchase a rig) ,As far as my company that does not have a lot of hydrants and no tanker we also know that 4 out of 5 mutual aid companies have tankers where as we have a 75' quint E-One and only 2 of the 5 have rigs considered ladders. As far as different types i can only say that all my companies rigs are the same type same pump (different sizes) with the exception that trucks are getting larger (ie crew size).

[Guest]

Cogs you're not off topic at all.

How many times over and over do you see stuff purchased that makes no sense at all. With more and more depts struggling with the manpower situation we need to see what the depts around us are doing and maybe start jumping resources. For example, in my town there are two fire districts, the fire houes are 3 miles apart. The other dept will be taking delivery of a new CAFS engine. Now I love that technlogy but does it make sense for us to buy a CAFS pumper when at most structure fires in our district the M/A dept is there anyways. I guess one could argue that that rig may be o/o/s, well if it then we have put our fires for years without CAFS so I guess we would manage.

Shaking my head here, just can't see it, we all continue to buy apparatus and how many times do your hear 2nd and 3rd tones go out because they can't get off the floor. Enough ramdom thoughts from me.

Might be random thoughts Mark but your not too far off base. See you at the next AFA