Should All Fire Trucks Carry Water?

[wraftery 1,275]

It slices, it dices, it chops....

Remember those Ronco commercials? That stuff never worked well, did it?

Whenever you buy something that claims to do lots of things, it rarely does any one of those things well .

That's my feeling on quints.

Then somebody says "we have a quint, why do we need an engine?" And then POOF! The Lay-off Genie appears.

[antiquefirelt 994]

To a quint is somewhat different than the rescue engine concept in that the role of the personnel is vastly different. When we arrive at a fire we need engine companies and truck companies doing their specific functions well. When we have a pin job we typically don't see the need for multiple different company types. Extrication is a fairly easy role for either a truck or engine, of course better with a dedicated company who spends even more time training and conducting these ops.

The second issue I have is putting two primary systems on one truck-aerial and pump. Both systems can take the truck out of service killing both roles. To me a rescue engine with portable equipment works where there aren't other companies that can cover the assignment when the pumper is out for service or otherwise engaged.

I see quints as perpetuating the "jack of all trades, master of none". So where multiple houses and companies are needed, I think the quint is an impediment to better quality apparatus and personnel. And as Chief Raftery points out, they are like the magic lantern the "lay off Genie" resides in.

Edited September 9, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[FireMedic049 597]

So back to the engine / truck / quint debate, why is it that we are generally against quints, but we seem to love rescue pumpers?

I've seen plenty of comments against rescue pumpers, but overall they seem to be more accepted. I think this is for several reasons.

1) We tend to view the dual role capabilities of each unit in a different fashion. When responding to calls, the rescue engine's role tends to be more universally clear. MVA = rescue, Fire = engine. Although there is an engine company component to some rescue situations, the either/or deployment role is fairly clear. For the quint, there often isn't that same level of clarity from the outset as to what the role is.

2) The role of the quint is often misunderstood. Many seem to think that the dual role function means dual action and thus the comments about needing extra staffing to do both engine and truck work at the same time. In some cases, this may be the case, but in many others, particularly in a total quint concept (TQC) type deployment, the company is capable of work in both disciplines, but is not expected to perform both simultaneously.

3) Deviation from tradition. Combining engine/truck is far more sacrilegious than putting rescue equipment onto a pumper.

4) Quints are too often seen as a mechanism to eliminate personnel rather than evaluated on their own merits or with consideration for the overall situation in which they are used. You just don't see the rescue engine being used in the same way. In many cases, the quint is seen as THE reason that manpower was eliminated rather than understanding that the manpower was going to be eliminated anyway and the use of quints although maybe not ideal, is a viable or even better option than the alternatives. Yes, quints are often used to cut individual engine and truck companies, but they are also used to keep stations open when these cuts occur. So, if you're going to lose 5 companies anyway, is it better to stick with traditional deployment and have to close 3 stations and/or have stations with only a dry truck or keep all stations open using some or all quints?

Why is it OK to cram water and hose onto a rescue but not a truck?

In most cases, it seems that we are trying to cram rescue equipment onto a pumper.

Again I ask why it does not work the other way around, as in why are not all engines required to carry extrication equipment?

Edited September 9, 2014 by FireMedic049

[FireMedic049 597]

To a quint is somewhat different than the rescue engine concept in that the role of the personnel is vastly different. When we arrive at a fire we need engine companies and truck companies doing their specific functions well. When we have a pin job we typically don't see the need for multiple different company types. Extrication is a fairly easy role for either a truck or engine, of course better with a dedicated company who spends even more time training and conducting these ops.

The second issue I have is putting two primary systems on one truck-aerial and pump. Both systems can take the truck out of service killing both roles. To me a rescue engine with portable equipment works where there aren't other companies that can cover the assignment when the pumper is out for service or otherwise engaged.

I see quints as perpetuating the "jack of all trades, master of none". So where multiple houses and companies are needed, I think the quint is an impediment to better quality apparatus and personnel. And as Chief Raftery points out, they are like the magic lantern the "lay off Genie" resides in.

I think to a large extent, the "problem" with quints has a lot to do with the way we view them, design them and what we expect of them.

Oftentimes, when this debate comes up, the knock on the quint is this "jack of all trades, master of none" argument. Essentially, quints are bad because you can't do everything or carry everything that you could with individual apparatus. There doesn't seem to be the understanding that all quints are not equal nor are they used the same.

For example, my department has been running a quint (75' RM) for almost 13 years now. It runs primarily as an engine since we only have 2 units staffed and on-duty. Overall, it doesn't have as much hose on it as our engines, but it has enough of what we need. Other than being bigger, it works very well as an engine for us. There's no doubt that we can't carry the full compliment of truck tools and ladders that you'd find on a FDNY truck, or Chicago or LA, but that's ok since we don't need all of those things.

People seem to think that if it can't do everything, then it's no good. However, that's not a big deal if it can do what you need it to do 95+% of the time and do it good enough.

I read an article a number of years ago regarding a city's switch to a TQC deployment strategy. It was written by a member of that department and from the way the article was written, it was pretty clear that he was not a fan of that switch. Anyway, he listed several examples as why this switch was a problem, but IMO, all of them were department created. There were issues with how the supply line deployed thru hose chutes - now this was before the sidestacker hosebed, but that's a design issue. Having to send a 2nd unit to a vehicle fire on an interstate for more water. The quint they sent was a Tower quint with a 300 gallon water tank - that's an issue of not sending the right resources. The department also used ARVs for medical responses and one time a company was responding to a fire from a medical call and was given an assignment that their "mini-pumper" couldn't handle. If I recall correctly they were to pump a FDC of some sorts, but they had a small 500gpm pump, so of course the task had to be reassigned - that's an issue of not adequately designing your ARV for the way it will be used.

[antiquefirelt 994]

When I spoke of "Jack of all trades, Master of none" I was speaking of the personnel. Likely the majority of us don't have the luxury of members riding the same assigned piece for years at a time, but where that is possible, it's hard to dispute that the crew of that piece will be more effective. Guys that do nothing but work in engine companies will be better at engine ops that those of us who bounce around monthly or daily. The same thing with truck work. There are some shining examples in most departments of personnel who excel at everything they do, but likely that person who does a great job at any position would be phenomenal at just one if that was all he/she did. We have firefighter/paramedics, some are great medics, so are great firefighters, few are both. Not for lack of education or ability, but actual time and experience, as to excel at both disciplines takes time and work.

I think quints certainly have an application and can be used wisely, but do I think all trucks should carry water? Hell no.

Edited September 10, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

I don't think ALL trucks should carry water, BUT I think that depending on how your department operates, they should. I think it should come down to the need of the department and their responsibilities.

In our case yes. Our tower ladder carries 300 gallons and has a 2000 gpm pump . Several hand-lines and supply line and a portable master stream. Several times over the years the Tower has been either first due to several working structure fire, car fires and other fires were the engines were delayed ( mechanical/other alarms) and in a few cases the only piece able to respond.

We do a number of special events ( PR and demos etc), with limited manpower ( available to respond to calls ) and usually a full crew ( at the event) this piece can respond right away and be able to start suppression efforts. Since we are one dept and no separate engine or hook&Ladder co's we have to be able to operate every piece of equipment . Our other fire company co in town can have a 3-10 mile run to our district.

Typically this is our send piece out the door and many times (if there is no immediate need for the aerial),this piece has established the supply line to the Engine ( many cringing at that idea). It has also been utilized as the second or third fire ground pumper (attack lines). I almost lost 3 guys on day being cut off on a set of stairs and the line form the Tower ladder got the guys out. If our two engines are operating at another incident, this will respond, sometimes with the Tanker.

Has it pumped a hydrant - no, has drafted from a portable pond no , has it filled tankers no, but it could if need be. It has laid it's own supply line and supported itself many times, both in town and mutual aid. This works for us and will continue.

No, if we had a separate H&L co, with a good amount of other pumpers, I'd say no - if there is always a separate engine co responding, I don't see the need.

I'm a practical person... what is the need, how do we operate it. It comes down to NEED vs "I want"

Edited September 10, 2014 by CHIEFPHIL

[STAT213 332]

For those of you on departments big enough to have engine companies and truck companies...bravo, good on you. I work for the fourth largest department in my state. We staff four fire companies, an ambulance and a duty battalion chief. Why do I saw four FIRE companies? Because depending on when you get to the fire will depend on your assignment. Yes, we have a truck, a 100 foot TL. It is crossed staffed by three guys who also staff en engine and our second due ambulance. They may be LAST due to some calls. Some calls, they don't take the truck (gasp!), they take the engine. So engine guys - wait for it, this'll blow you away - do TRUCK work. I did it last night myself on the 4th due fire engine.

Having engine guys and truckies is a luxury we just don't have. We have firefighters who do tasks assigned as needed. So to me, the answer to the original question is this: YES. Until you can get BOTH pieces out the door every time, fully staffed, you need that first piece to have water on it. Having a piece of apparatus that could show up at a fire and operate alone for an extended period without water seems pretty dumb. My district is 10 minutes from the next closest station. So even if we did have an engine AND a truck out of my station, to run a dry truck that could end up operating alone for an extended period unable to extinguish the fire is stupid. Do what needs to be done based on tactical priorities, not based on what kinda vehicle you're riding on that day.

[robert benz 344]

For those of you on departments big enough to have engine companies and truck companies...bravo, good on you. I work for the fourth largest department in my state. We staff four fire companies, an ambulance and a duty battalion chief. Why do I saw four FIRE companies? Because depending on when you get to the fire will depend on your assignment. Yes, we have a truck, a 100 foot TL. It is crossed staffed by three guys who also staff en engine and our second due ambulance. They may be LAST due to some calls. Some calls, they don't take the truck (gasp!), they take the engine. So engine guys - wait for it, this'll blow you away - do TRUCK work. I did it last night myself on the 4th due fire engine.

Having engine guys and truckies is a luxury we just don't have. We have firefighters who do tasks assigned as needed. So to me, the answer to the original question is this: YES. Until you can get BOTH pieces out the door every time, fully staffed, you need that first piece to have water on it. Having a piece of apparatus that could show up at a fire and operate alone for an extended period without water seems pretty dumb. My district is 10 minutes from the next closest station. So even if we did have an engine AND a truck out of my station, to run a dry truck that could end up operating alone for an extended period unable to extinguish the fire is stupid. Do what needs to be done based on tactical priorities, not based on what kinda vehicle you're riding on that day.

you got my interest, you have staffing for 4 pieces of apparatus, but the truck isn't a priority. If it is sometimes last, and sometimes not at all, you don't need water, you need firefighters.

[STAT213 332]

you got my interest, you have staffing for 4 pieces of apparatus, but the truck isn't a priority. If it is sometimes last, and sometimes not at all, you don't need water, you need firefighters.

Ok, I'm not sure how my points about being firefighters first and being task oriented translate to a discussion of my department.

But I'll bite. We ALL need more firefighters. There are probably a handful of departments that would consider themselves fully staffed in the nation. And even those can find room for more guys.

I don't get why you feel the truck needs to be a priority all the time. Do you know how we operate? Do you know what equipment is carried on our pumps? Do you know that our coverage area is mostly rural and only 40% covered by hydrants? Would we like to have the truck on every call? Heck ya! Is it possible? Right now, no. How do we fix that? For now, a ladder is added to the rural district working fire run card. Problem is...it gets there way late. Can't win em all, but I think we do the best we can with our staffing.

[wraftery 1,275]

you got my interest, you have staffing for 4 pieces of apparatus, but the truck isn't a priority. If it is sometimes last, and sometimes not at all, you don't need water, you need firefighters.

A rule almost written in stone:

Truck gets the front of the building

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR DEPARTMENT IS BIG OR SMALL, the rule still stands

You can't do that if there are four engines blocking the way

[Bnechis 3,961]

I don't get why you feel the truck needs to be a priority all the time.

Because you can stretch hose but you can not stretch ladders.

When working as a flycar medic covering a number of different communities I watched depts. that never understood the value of this. Was amazed when the chiefs would order the ladder to stay away from the building so the engines could stretch in. At one fire, after the above happened, it was determined that the aerial was needed, so 1,800 feet of charged 5" hose was manually dragged out of the way so the ladder that was ordered away could make the front of the building.

[STAT213 332]

Okay. Everybody SLOW down.

Yes, the truck SHOULD get the front. Especially in a response district like that one.

I don't work in Yonkers. Not even close. There is ZERO need for a tower ladder when fighting a fire in a single story ranch on five acres at the end of a 200 foot driveway. My engine has ladders that will reach the roof. (Not that you really need to cut a whole in that kinda of structure, anyway). It has saws, hooks, fans. What exactly do I need a truck for? Just cause? No. I'll take the 1000 gallons of water, thank you.

What I'm getting at is you adjust your tactics for your situation. Manpower, types of structural issues you have, water supply. Ever heard of coal was wealth, Wallace was hot? All them things? Am I advocating for not having truck companies in Yonkers? God no.

I am saying that there are no golden rules. We adjust, adapt and improvise to overcome the obstacles and challenges we face. One of those adaptions we make is to sometimes leave the tower in the barn and take the engine to fight the fire. Water on the engine puts out fire. Dry trucks don't. If you had to pick one or the other, which would you choose?

[gamewell45 258]

Interesting article, especially with the increasing trouble of getting rigs on the road.

As far as a quick knockdown of a Class A fire, isn't the can a truck company position?

This seems like it would be a neat tool to have:

:

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/fire-apparatus/articles/1970355-Should-all-fire-trucks-carry-water/

I think at the least, a water can. Our ultility truck carries both water can and a dry chemical.