APPARATUS MYTHS
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON…
Many of us have opinions as to the use, safety, outfitting, and positioning of apparatus on the fire scene. I guess by now you know: So do I!
Aerial shear stress. For a long time, aerial ladders have depended on the truss assemblies forming the rails for strength. This strength is enhanced or reduced depending on extension, angle, load (how many firefighters are supported), and whether the aerial is supported at the tip.
lately there have been an increasing number of aerial ladder failures, some unfortunately with members on them. One of the main causes, at least from my perspective, is that aerial ladders have very little shear-stress strength. It means that they can’t “take a hit from the side.” This is especially true if they’re overextended at too low an angle and/or not supported. Perhaps the reason is that we have forgotten this safety factor because of new construction on today’s modern apparatus deliveries. They are designed and built to do what yesterday’s aerials could not do—operate at low (zero-degree) angles—and are “beefed up” to work well unsupported at maximum extensions.
We’ve had one collapse at a rescue attempt in a major city with three firefighters on the extended, low-angle, unsupported ladder. The immediate cause of failure was that a tower ladder stream just “ticked” the tip of the aerial. Of course, all the other reasons were in place at the time of impact. Another firefighter was killed recently while performing work on the fire station from the end of a fully extended, unsupported metal aerial — again, way beyond the safety guidelines for designed load, extension, and angle.
Perhaps we are lulled away from following the safety rules for our older aerials because we see so many photographs of newer apparatus at defensive fire operations. If your aerial isn’t designed for these space-age acrobatics, it will fail, too.
Pay strict attention to the operational safety restrictions that pertain specifically to your apparatus and not what may look good or best or seem right because the other guy does it!
Pumping water supply. In-line water supply has become a buzzword in all our departments. This is a fine tactic when you have hydrant problems—either you don’t have any, they are very distant from one another, or they are in terrible shape (many out of service, as was common in America’s inner cities during the “burn, baby, burn” days of the mid-sixties and early seventies). You had no choice: either someone brought you water or you ran out.
But the “blanket” adoption of inline by departments with hydrants and water supply in abundance is a mistake. It probably is really used to support the concept that we “always” stretch the preconnect and the other pumper gets us supplemental water.
Whatever happened to the old maxim. “If you don’t have to depend on others for water, don’t!”? There’s always the argument of manning levels. However, it takes just as much effort to drop the hose, reverse lay to the hydrant, break the hose, hook up to the booster water, and then augment hydrant water with the short connection through the gated inlet as it does to supply a hoseline by booster tank at the fire and then have to wait for the second engine to hook up augmenting water. But the benefit is that you don’t run out of water. You don’t have to depend on others.
Placement of fire apparatus at the scene. Forget about the sounding of and placement/staging of secondand third-alarm assignments. You’ll have time, control, and communications on your side by then. The successful firelight is dependent on the proper placement of the first-arriving units —two engines and one aerial device. “No second engine in the fire block until the aerial is placed to be most effective” is a good rule of thumb. And remember, you can always stretch hose —but not ladders.
Apparatus put out fires? We all know it’s the firefighters and not the apparatus. But is that obvious today? We operate with a Beau Geste syndrome: all unattended rifles on the battlements but no one to fire them. We know also that management cannot comprehend what efficient minimum manning levels are, but while we’re waiting for enlightenment I’d rather have two four-man engines and one five-man truck to work with than have seven or more pieces show up with just two personnel, or worse, one.
