By Rob Fisher
One of the many debates in the American fire service is the effectiveness of a quint fire apparatus. Some fire service leaders who work or have worked in respectable fire departments believe they cause tactical confusion on the fireground and have contributed to decreased staffing levels. Many others, however, see the quint as being more versatile, allowing a company to address tactical objectives by priorities rather than fulfilling them by their apparatus designator or function. Each perspective has merits. Let’s looks at some of the issues surrounding this unique apparatus.
What is a Quint?
First, what actually is this somewhat hated monstrosity called a quint? National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2009 edition) outlines the minimum specifications for all fire apparatus. The requirements for a quint are in Chapter 9.Generally speaking, a quint carries fire hose and ground ladders and has a fire pump, a water tank, and an aerial device. Here’s where it gets interesting. When compared with the NFPA requirement for an engine, a quint meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.
NFPA Requirements for Quint vs. Engine
NFPA 1901 requires an engine (defined as a pumper fire apparatus) to be equipped with a 750-gallons per minute (gpm) rated pump. In Chapter 9, a quint is to have a 1,000 gpm rated pump. The 1,000 gpm rating is needed to meet the flow requirements of a preplumbed waterway.
Both need to have a minimum of a 300-gallon water tank and the following hose requirements: 800 feet of 2½-inch or larger of fire hose (supply or working line) and 400 feet of 1½- or 1¾-inch of attack line.
The engine is required to carry an extension ladder, a straight ladder with hooks, and a folding ladder, whereas the quint shall carry a total of 85 feet of ground ladders with an extension ladder, a straight ladder with hooks, and a folding ladder.
Both shall have an aerial device that is 50 feet minimum. The ground ladder complement on an aerial increases a whopping 30 feet, for a total ground ladder package of 115 feet. Do you sense my sarcasm? In all reality, the quint is as much of an engine as it is an aerial according to the standards outlined in NFPA 1901.
Discussion
I’m not sure what’s worse, an engine that meets the requirements of a ladder truck with firefighting capabilities or a truck with a pump that nearly meets the NFPA standards for a traditional ladder truck. What happened to engines carrying hose and water and ladder trucks carrying ground ladders and tools? Have we willingly drifted so far away from functionality that it has created significant confusion on the fireground?
Many things have changed in our world and in the American fire service over the past 50 years–too many to address in this article. But, anyone who has been around long enough or has extensively studied fireground operations would say the minimum NFPA requirements for an engine, quint, or aerial ladder are inadequate for proper fireground operations. The fallout of decreasing the ground ladders carried on a ladder truck has put greater dependence on the use of aerial devices. The result is where I feel the tactical confusion exists: A quint positioning as an engine with the potential of using its aerial can cause a bit of a dilemma on the fireground.
I believe much of this is fostered by the fire apparatus manufactures, as ground ladders do not make money but advanced systems and aerial devices do. That is a rant for another day. Many believe the reliance on aerial devices occurred as a result of decreased staffing coming out of the late 1970s, which is about the time quints started becoming more prevalent in the American fire service. A quote directly from Richmond (VA) Fire and Emergency Services Web page on the quint concept states: “The Total Quint Concept plan enables the department to have a substantial reduction in personnel, yet keep all 20 fire stations operating with resources and apparatus that personnel can utilize more effectively and efficiently.” (http://www.richmondgov.com/fire/QuintConcept.aspx)
Prevalence of Quints in the Fire Service
A few years ago, I conducted a general poll of the major aerial manufacturers. I asked what percentage of aerials coming off the line were quints. Surprisingly, their answer was 75 percent to 80 percent of the aerial apparatus being built were quints or aerial devices with some type of firefighting capabilities such as a fire pump or a compressed air foam system.
The quint seems to be the truck company of the suburban fire department. As the suburban areas begin to grow, so does their fire department. The quint is a good stepping stone to traditional truck company operations for a growing organization. In my department, we started out of necessity in 1995 to staff a quint to staff a station since the department did not have an extra engine to house there. Since that time, we have grown our truck company operations and have proven its worth on the fireground. We made our quint, with limited compartmentation and ground ladders, work for us by adding additional compartments and mounting some of our equipment (hooks and tools, for example) to the exterior of the apparatus. We learned that the apparatus did not define our operations; our attitude concerning fireground operations did.
Some larger municipal departments have moves from traditional truck company configurations to the quints–most notably, St. Louis, Fort Worth, and Richmond. These departments moved to a Total Quint Concept (TQC) or blended quints with their already traditional truck companies. Do these departments see some of the same issues smaller suburban departments do? I don’t think so. The problem with the smaller suburban department is that it often has only one ladder, and it’s a quint; whereas the larger department or those running the TQC have multiple quints arriving on the fireground. The larger department can have the first quint position and work as an engine while the second quint positions as a truck company. Obviously, this works; otherwise, St. Louis and other TQC organization would not have implemented such a program. Even though, there still remains with quints the issues of limited fire attack capabilities and minimum ground ladder complements.
Making the Quint Work in a Smaller Suburban Department
If your department is fortunate to be able to specify and design something that meets the needs of the organization, take the time and effort to do so. Consider looking at a tractor-drawn aerial (TDA) if your staffing and training allow. The TDA will allow you to have suppression functions without impacting compartmentation and ground ladder storage capabilities.
Develop operation guidelines that outline the expectations of the quint on the fireground for specific occupancies and order of arrival. Functioning as an engine on single-story residences is reasonable. But, this is a more complicated issue when the quint arrives first due to a large apartment building without another ladder arriving within an acceptable timeframe. Should the quint position for aerial operations or the stretch? In most cases, it is not possible to do even if you had the personnel to do so. A guideline will help clarify what is expected from everyone.
Take the time to provide quality training for your personnel working on the quint. Talking about it in the classroom is a good start, but it really needs to be reinforced by multicompany operations with the other engines in the department. Make those who work on the quint good at support functions (truck work). They should think truck (support) first and engine second.
Depending on where you work, your view of quints is probably driven by your experiences. Quints are a unique apparatus on the fireground. Planning and training can address many of the problems faced by those who work on them. Moreover, you cannot compare the operations of a department running multiple quints with a department that only has one quint.
BIO
Rob Fisher has been a student of the fire service for the past 27 years. In this time, he has worked as a volunteer, career firefighter, drive /operator, lieutenant, training captain, and battalion chief. Currently, he is a lieutenant assigned to Ladder 72 in Snohomish County, Washington. He is an active member of the Snohomish County Technical Rescue Task Force. He is a member of the Puget Sound F.O.O.L.S. and the F.O.O.L.S. International Educational Trustee. In 2008, he was the recipient of the Dana Hannon award for training. He instructs primarily in ladder company and quint operations and at the Washington State Fire Academy as a recruit academy instructor. He has instructed and lectured at large conferences; this was his second year instructing on quint operations at FDIC International.
