Wear And Tear On Apparatus From EMS Calls

[x635 4,066]

I know a lot of departments have to justify apparatus replacement, and if it's not used often then it becomes an issue in some cases. I'm sure in most departments that run EMS first response, the Engine responds to more EMS calls then fire, putting uneccesary wear and tear on $400,000 pieces of apparatus, plus fuel costs.

I'm seeing two concepts that are becoming popular.

The first is the FD responding only to 911 calls that are not in a medical facility (doctors office, nursing home, etc) where there are verified trained medical personel. And prioritizing calls. In a lot of cases here, EMS arrives or beats the FD to the scene, and most of the time they are not needed.

The other is the Squad concept. I know it's a different term wherever you go, but for this sentence I'm going with Squads. It's becoming increasingly popular here.

Many departments are running light rescues, brush trucks, or even outfitted pickup trucks or SUV's. They respond to EMS calls, minor accidents, fluid spills, etc. Usually staffed by dedicated personel that will supplement the company they are with, or will contain two members from the company who will meet up with the Engine or Truck when needed. They are also used for general purposes, like going to the supermarket, etc. And they can be used to shuttle personel and equipment to difficult to access areas, or to fire scenes where only manpower is needed, and the apparatus can stay in it's home district.

This keeps the fire apparatus available for fires, as well as reduces wear and tear and fuel usage. The replacement cost for a Squad is much less then an engine, and so is fuel usage.

Just some thoughts and things to consider.

[JetPhoto 626]

When we got a new chiefs car we took the old one and made it into a multi purpose truck (EMS, Fire Police, etc) to lesson the wear on our larger apperatus.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Several FD's in northern NY that run as First Responder's too EMS calls utilize, like you said, utilities, light rescues, brush trucks, etc whatever the unit designation may be. Seems to be a smart choice.

[Task Force 7 65]

Seth,

Arlington, Texas, is trying this concept right now. They took a old BC surburban last year and ran it as Squad 2 out of Station 2 on EMS calls.They found out it does save on fuel, and wear and tear on the Engine. They just bought two new Chevy Tahoes and will now be running a second Squad out of Station 4. These two Squads only respond to calls in their district, they don't cover the whole city. Arlington is still doing a study on this. However I wouldn't be surprise if they purchase some more Tahoes, and place them at throughout the city.

[firedude 985]

Several volunteer FD's upstate that I'm familiar with run a SUV flycar or light rescue for EMS calls. It makes more sense to send a flycar to an EMS call than send a fire truck. In the long run, it saves money.

Here is Greenfield Fire District's (Maple Ave Fire Co.) BLS Flycar. It runs on about 300 calls per year.

Edited February 2, 2012 by firedude

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Several volunteer FD's upstate that I'm familiar with run a SUV flycar or light rescue for EMS calls. It makes more sense to send a flycar to an EMS call than send a fire truck. In the long run, it saves money.

Here is Greenfield Fire District's (Maple Ave Fire Co.) BLS Flycar. It runs on about 300 calls per year.

Potentially more drivers as well...don 't need pump ops. EVOC?

[robert benz 344]

Several FD's in northern NY that run as First Responder's too EMS calls utilize, like you said, utilities, light rescues, brush trucks, etc whatever the unit designation may be. Seems to be a smart choice.

so if they get a fire call, they / he/ she has to take the utility back to the firehouse. Now get the apparatus that is represented by the patch on your sleeve.

XYZ FIRE DEPT.

[firedude 985]

Potentially more drivers as well...don 't need pump ops. EVOC?

Good point!

so if they get a fire call, they / he/ she has to take the utility back to the firehouse. Now get the apparatus that is represented by the patch on your sleeve.

XYZ FIRE DEPT.

IMO, It doesn't make sense to me to take an engine out of service to respond to a nose bleed. It's more appropriate to have a SUV Flycar or utility respond. If they do get a fire call, they usually respond to the scene since they are firefighter as well. Most VFD's don't have the manpower to fill an engine with EMTs. For the flycar pictured above, that VFD only has 2-3 Firefighter/EMT, compared to 30 active firefighters.

Edited February 3, 2012 by firedude

[Bnechis 3,961]

In the long run, it saves money.

Here is .... BLS Flycar. It runs on about 300 calls per year.

Since most depts. do more EMS calls than Fire calls, I suspect this dept. runs about 500 calls per year. If they are keeping an engine for 25 years thats a total of 12,500 calls if it covered all of them without a flycar. Engines used in big citys are designed to handle that in 4-5 years and tend to be dead in 10-12. That means one could double the life of this engine to 50 years. Are we really saving money?

We need to buy the flycar and equip it, insure it, maintain it, fuel it and house it.

Is it cheaper than the engine yes, but the argument appears to be that it will make the engine last longer. Can we keep a rig longer than 25 years and still meet NFPA? Is it safe?

Is it good maintenance practice to run your engine so little? They are designed to get out on the road.

Does it make operations sense? Sometimes, depending on the dept.

[firedude 985]

Since most depts. do more EMS calls than Fire calls, I suspect this dept. runs about 500 calls per year.

The department we are talking about, is called the Greenfield Fire District. They responded to about 1200 calls last year. There are 4 companies in the district, unsure of the breakdown. 3 of the 4 companies run EMS calls. Not all EMS calls recieve a FD response. I believe they may be the exception, more FD than EMS calls. Anyway, nice post.

[JohnnyOV 2]

FIRE Department, 'nuff said.

[ny10570 745]

EMD. Prioritize the calls and send the medic on ALS calls. An added benefit of FD response is the extra hands. 2 EMTs and a medic cannot effectively work a long arrest. You think you can, but after the first few rounds of CPR even 2 minutes results in a drop in quality. Then once you get that patient back you have the dash to the ER. Even in the burbs with the narrow stairs and crappy layouts more help is always appreciated.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

FIRE Department, 'nuff said.

FIRE Departments should not help people/patients?

[PFDRes47cue 653]

so if they get a fire call, they / he/ she has to take the utility back to the firehouse. Now get the apparatus that is represented by the patch on your sleeve.

XYZ FIRE DEPT.

I completely understand your point but, lets think realistically. Do departments that also are CFR recognized have just CFR members? YES. If the departments gets "a fire call," then the CFR's are not at all necessary in the FD response. Do departments have more than 5 members? YES. If the department gets "a fire call" then there should be other "firefighters" to handle the call. Is this always realistic? Maybe not. If this is the case, yes they can respond back to the station or to the scene if other apparatus will respond as well.

Question: If your department is on a fire alarm with an Engine and a mutual aid request is made for your department to send a Ladder, Tower Ladder or Rescue to a scene of an incident, what do you do? You go to the station and switch equipment or other personnel fill out the request.

Does your department run as a CFR agency? Neither of mine do but...if yours do, how many times per year do you get a "fire call" while on a CFR call? I don't know the answer but I can assume not many. If you do get one, and are tied up on a CFR run so be it...a call is a call. The CFR run came in first, that patient needs you. I'm a member of a VAC and an FD If I am out on a VAC call and a fire call comes in, I do not leave the VAC call...

Edited February 3, 2012 by PFDRes47cue

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Does it make operations sense? Sometimes, depending on the dept.

I think that this is the key, it depends solely on the department.

[Bnechis 3,961]

FIRE Departments should not help people/patients?

Thats not what he is saying and I think you know it.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Do departments that also are CFR recognized have just CFR members? YES.

Around here, not commonly.

Do departments have more than 5 members? YES.

That show up? Not during the daytime, and sometimes not at oher times.

If the department gets "a fire call" then there should be other "firefighters" to handle the call. Is this always realistic? Maybe not.

See above. Handling two calls at a time is not happening in many depts....actually handling 1 call at a time is not happening in many depts.

Question: If your department is on a fire alarm with an Engine and a mutual aid request is made for your department to send a Ladder, Tower Ladder or Rescue to a scene of an incident, what do you do? You go to the station and switch equipment or other personnel fill out the request.

Does the dept not have enough people to get 2 staffed rigs out? if so its not a dept. its a company and its time to fix it or move on.

Does your department run as a CFR agency? Neither of mine do but...if yours do, how many times per year do you get a "fire call" while on a CFR call? I don't know the answer but I can assume not many.

Yes, daily.

[cman473 56]

FIRE Department, 'nuff said.

Poorly worded statement.. many Larger city's run EMS, many mid sized city's run EMS and a crap load of VFD's run Medical.

When you run a MVA w/ Injuries you are "doing" EMS. Keep this in the back of your mind... a fire call can and has turned into a large EMS incident and an EMS incident can and has turned into a large fire based incident.

The basis that "we are a fire department" is * and void being that fire department is in the field of Emergency Services and you WILL do some sort of patient interaction with in your career, whether it be at a structure fire down to the measly public service pump out. No matter how you look at it, the 2 of them, fire and ems, must work together . The 2 of them have worked together and some are very successful in doing so.

The attitude that One is better than the other needs to stop because going into an incident with that attitude and mind set, you will: 1 Make your self look like an A*&, 2 Hurt Someone and 3 Possibly Kill Someone.

Open your mind, train with each other and don't let 300 years of tradition impede modern progress.

Just my 2 cents...

[JohnnyOV 2]

FIRE Departments should not help people/patients?

That is not what I am saying at all... That's a complete strawman argument and you know it.

Currently we have fire departments building fire engines around EMS transporting jobs. What happens when the first due engine company (and mind you its the only fire company for miles) is tied up transporting a taxi ride, and a structure fire comes in? Volusia County, FL and many others have taken the disgusting option of doing this. Removing FIREFIGHTERS from their primary role of rescuing life, and protecting property, to becoming a cash money machine for the government by transporting patients. They already overtook the contracted county ambulance company, and turned them into a department of the county, why deplete your resources even more. Hell, lets not stop there, lets add a pump panel to a garbage truck, and cross train the sanitation workers to do Fire since they're always out on the road. Pick one job and stick with it. Theres a reason many places try to cross train their cops as firemen, and visa versa, and when it fails, they revert back to the old system. Someone's life or property is going to be lost because the firemen were busy dealing with a passed out drunk somewhere, or the cops were on a V&T stop with 1 in custody and unable to respond to a call that would typically be handled by a fire department.

If you want to send firefighters on life or death medical calls based off an EMD dispatch, that's your departments choice and I hope a good risk / benefit analysis was done off it. But to either break up a company like many places do, or place an entire company on every single medical call, unavailable to respond to their primary function, in my eyes, is ludicrous.

[JohnnyOV 2]

The basis that "we are a fire department" is * and void being that fire department is in the field of Emergency Services and you WILL do some sort of patient interaction with in your career, whether it be at a structure fire down to the measly public service pump out. No matter how you look at it, the 2 of them, fire and ems, must work together . The 2 of them have worked together and some are very successful in doing so.

The attitude that One is better than the other needs to stop because going into an incident with that attitude and mind set, you will: 1 Make your self look like an A*&, 2 Hurt Someone and 3 Possibly Kill Someone.

Open your mind, train with each other and don't let 300 years of tradition impede modern progress.

Just my 2 cents...

Then we should also learn the basics of law enforcement and be cross trained in that as well, because at some point, we'll deal with more then just a fire code violation such as a drunk, a violent person, child abuse, domestic violence, drug addiction... (that's sarcasm for those who can't recognize it)

I completely agree that firemen should know first aid/CPR, have their CFR, or maybe even EMT. If your department can handle the work load and have the appropriate backup of sending an entire company out to an EMS run, all the more power to you. Just don't do it in a way that jeopardizes your response for your primary function...

Edited February 3, 2012 by JohnnyOV

[JetPhoto 626]

My fire department exist to help save lives and property of the residents that we serve.

I guess until your on a EMS related call where you save someones life, you may never understand.

That someone may not just be a resident of your district it may even be one of your family members or a brother firefighter!

[JohnnyOV 2]

My fire department exist to help save lives and property of the residents that we serve.

I guess until your on a EMS related call where you save someones life, you may never understand.

That someone may not just be a resident of your district it may even be one of your family members or a brother firefighter!

Since people are making it personal, I have been. I've been an EMT for almost 6 years, worked as an EMT while I was in school, personally started a campus based EMS response where I used to volunteer as an EMT, and recently I finally had a CPR save of someone who was a resident of our district in a parking lot that I just so happened to be in the area of .

Did I feel great about the save? Absolutely. But my personal butterfly feel good feelings is not enough to justify adding another 1300 alarms to my department a year, which would bring our totals to almost 2100 calls a year. For an all volunteer department with no "staffing," it would burn everyone out in a month. Aside from the burnout, you're still taking firemen or two away who could respond to an alarm, which we're typically doing 3 a day of, and having them babysit while they wait, with a cop and a medic, on an ambulance from 2 towns over.

In career departments, you're reducing the manpower of a company to have them respond on an ambulance or a utility, or removing an entire company out of service if you're doing first response, with no extra manpower to back fill additional apparatus, unless you're doing call backs for ems runs. Some departments even remove 2 from either the engine or truck and have them staff the ambulance when an EMS run comes in, and leave the remaining crew to operate reduced manpower... now try and explain the good in that to me?

The fire department was created with the intent of extinguishing fires, saving lives and protecting property from fire.

Some change is good, and being trained in EMS is one of them. But placing EMS as a priority over a proper fire response, which is exactly what is occurring, is not one of them.

Edited February 3, 2012 by JohnnyOV

[PFDRes47cue 653]

That is not what I am saying at all... That's a complete strawman argument and you know it.

Currently we have fire departments building fire engines around EMS transporting jobs. What happens when the first due engine company (and mind you its the only fire company for miles) is tied up transporting a taxi ride, and a structure fire comes in? Volusia County, FL and many others have taken the disgusting option of doing this. Removing FIREFIGHTERS from their primary role of rescuing life, and protecting property, to becoming a cash money machine for the government by transporting patients. They already overtook the contracted county ambulance company, and turned them into a department of the county, why deplete your resources even more. Hell, lets not stop there, lets add a pump panel to a garbage truck, and cross train the sanitation workers to do Fire since they're always out on the road. Pick one job and stick with it. Theres a reason many places try to cross train their cops as firemen, and visa versa, and when it fails, they revert back to the old system. Someone's life or property is going to be lost because the firemen were busy dealing with a passed out drunk somewhere, or the cops were on a V&T stop with 1 in custody and unable to respond to a call that would typically be handled by a fire department.

If you want to send firefighters on life or death medical calls based off an EMD dispatch, that's your departments choice and I hope a good risk / benefit analysis was done off it. But to either break up a company like many places do, or place an entire company on every single medical call, unavailable to respond to their primary function, in my eyes, is ludicrous.

This is a completely different issue that to be honest was not what I thought this thread was discussing. Like you, I also do not understand the combo rig and having an Engine be completely tied up for a taxi ride. I was under the impression that we were discussing departments that send CFR's to EMS calls in an apparatus to assist a the EMS providers. This means they are not tied up with transporting.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Since people are making it personal, I have been. I've been an EMT for almost 6 years, worked as an EMT while I was in school, personally started a campus based EMS response where I used to volunteer as an EMT, and recently I finally had a CPR save of someone who was a resident of our district in a parking lot that I just so happened to be in the area of .

Did I feel great about the save? Absolutely. But my personal butterfly feel good feelings is not enough to justify adding another 1300 alarms to my department a year, which would bring our totals to almost 2100 calls a year. For an all volunteer department with no "staffing," it would burn everyone out in a month. Aside from the burnout, you're still taking firemen or two away who could respond to an alarm, which we're typically doing 3 a day of, and having them babysit while they wait, with a cop and a medic, on an ambulance from 2 towns over.

In career departments, you're reducing the manpower of a company to have them respond on an ambulance or a utility, or removing an entire company out of service if you're doing first response, with no extra manpower to back fill additional apparatus, unless you're doing call backs for ems runs. Some departments even remove 2 from either the engine or truck and have them staff the ambulance when an EMS run comes in, and leave the remaining crew to operate reduced manpower... now try and explain the good in that to me?

The fire department was created with the intent of extinguishing fires, saving lives and protecting property from fire.

Some change is good, and being trained in EMS is one of them. But placing EMS as a priority over a proper fire response, which is exactly what is occurring, is not one of them.

First off, congratulations on the save Brother! secondly, I have and am taking non of this personal and am not trying to make things personal. After all, neither FD that I am a member of at as first responders for EMS calls so I could care less about the wear and tear XYZ FIRE Department's rigs are getting from responding to EMS calls.

With that said...

The fire department may have very well be created with the sole intent of extinguishing fires, saving lives and protecting property from fire...I was not at that meeting. since you brought up your departments run numbers, I will continue with them, and I mean nothing against your department. How many of your departments almost 800 calls per year are a "proper fire response?" How many of these alarms are wires down with no fire? MVA's with no fire? Public assist calls with no fire? It is safe to say that the majority of runs that EVERY department responds to are not relating to "fire."

[cman473 56]

Then we should also learn the basics of law enforcement and be cross trained in that as well, because at some point, we'll deal with more then just a fire code violation such as a drunk, a violent person, child abuse, domestic violence, drug addiction... (that's sarcasm for those who can't recognize it)

I completely agree that firemen should know first aid/CPR, have their CFR, or maybe even EMT. If your department can handle the work load and have the appropriate backup of sending an entire company out to an EMS run, all the more power to you. Just don't do it in a way that jeopardizes your response for your primary function...

You 100% Correct...

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Then we should also learn the basics of law enforcement and be cross trained in that as well, because at some point, we'll deal with more then just a fire code violation such as a drunk, a violent person, child abuse, domestic violence, drug addiction... (that's sarcasm for those who can't recognize it)

I completely agree that firemen should know first aid/CPR, have their CFR, or maybe even EMT. If your department can handle the work load and have the appropriate backup of sending an entire company out to an EMS run, all the more power to you. Just don't do it in a way that jeopardizes your response for your primary function...

Completely correct and well said. The issue is not a fire department running EMS calls, the issue is that departments are biting off more than they can chew. Clearly a fire department should not be a first response agency if they can not do so efficiently.

[x635 4,066]

For those who've seen "Emergency" , it's kind of like the concept with Squad 51.

For those who think that they have to go to the apparatus if they are out to "swap", that's not the concept I'm reffering to. Use two guys from the company (this only applies to a properly staffed FD) to run a truck like this, that runs concurently with the apparatus when needed. This apparatus could also be supplemental during storrms, and other needs.

Since most depts. do more EMS calls than Fire calls, I suspect this dept. runs about 500 calls per year. If they are keeping an engine for 25 years thats a total of 12,500 calls if it covered all of them without a flycar. Engines used in big citys are designed to handle that in 4-5 years and tend to be dead in 10-12. That means one could double the life of this engine to 50 years. Are we really saving money?

Engines are designed to supply water to a fire. In most departments that use their Engines for EMS, much of the mileage and fuel are the result of EMS calls.

When you consider the costs of an Engine, like tires and other components that will need replacement several times duiring it's life, there's savings right there. And if you run a Quint or Truck to EMS calls, there's even more cost right there. Using a Ford chasis, it's a lot cheaper for parts, mechanics, and to take it to the dealer then an Engine.

Many departments also have "Utilities", pickup trucks, used Chiefs cars, etc that can be used for EMS response.

Is it cheaper than the engine yes, but the argument appears to be that it will make the engine last longer. Can we keep a rig longer than 25 years and still meet NFPA? Is it safe?

Nope. But I know a lot of departments that run their apparatus more conservatively with Squads and get a longer service life with a rig that's perfectly fine. Also, apparatus can be upgraded to meet some NFPA standards. I know of several departments that have well maintained Engines that are close to 20 years old. Keeping an Engine for 50 years is obviously not reasonable.

It also keeps the Engine in service more. The Engine also should be busy enough tending to fire calls.

Also, when it comes down to resale proceeds, trade in value, or going into the spare pool, you will have a decent piece of apparatus.

[sympathomedic 383]

I believe that when a member of Mohegan VFA and MAC successfully ran for Fire Commissioner 5 years back, he did some math and determined (my memory is very suspect) that running their engines cost about $17/mile and running their SUV's was less than $5/mile, taking in many costs. Big district, lots of calls = many miles.

I also recall a quote from Allen Brunacini who was the Chief of the Phoenix FD and a highly respected national leader and speaker in the fire service. He said "Using a class A pumper to answer EMS calls is like using a cement truck to deliver a pizza."

[Bnechis 3,961]

I also recall a quote from Allen Brunacini who was the Chief of the Phoenix FD and a highly respected national leader and speaker in the fire service. He said "Using a class A pumper to answer EMS calls is like using a cement truck to deliver a pizza."

He also said that Phoenix was not a fire dept that responded to EMS calls, but with 86% of their calls being EMS, they were an EMS agency that sometimes went to fires.

If only 14% of the calls were non EMS, take away the service calls, and all the other non fire calls and he was correct you do not need fire trucks in Phoenix. But then one must wonder why do they need to send an engine, truck or ladder tender on every ALS call as they do not put medics on ambulances.

[wraftery 1,275]

Remember there are many activities that can be cited as adding wear and tear to apparatus and that are not actual fire responses. There are ems calls, public assistance calls, parades, school visits, going to the store, and training, only to mention a few.

The traditional reason we take our fire engines wherever we go is because we don't know when a run will come in.

I think a great part of the problem is not the fact that we are doing EMS runs, but that the EMS service is abused by the public. Somebody falls off a bike and what used to be "wash it out and put a band-aid on it" is now very possibly a run that involves a cervical collar, backboard and transport. This appears to me to be part the public's fault, part ours. Yes there are true ems runs that we should be going on, but we have to get a grip.

First thing might be to get the law changed so we can refuse to treat stupid miniscule things and not worry about the lawyers. OOPS! If we do that, then we won't be able to charge for ambulance calls because we didn't transport the patient. If we don't charge for enough ambulance calls, we won't have enough money to buy new fire engines and hire firemen. Why? Because unlike the fire engine who makes no money by going to fires, the EMS part of our business is often a money maker depending on what state you are in and what kind of ambulance service your city is running.

All I can say is