Are you buying the right fire apparatus?
APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT
OPINION
Too many fire departments do not know how to buy the fire apparatus that they really need, end up wasting a lot of money and do not give the public the protection they need and deserve.
I often see fire departments with engines, tankers and aerials that are partially or totally unsuited to the needs of the departments involved. For example, why does a combination department buy five man, cab-forward, custom chassis pumpers when the volunteers respond directly to the scene and only the paid driver is on board when the rig leaves the station? Somehow, it seems to me something is wrong with this. What is the justification for the spending of money for such an elaborate chassis when a good commercial chassis would do the same job and save money?
This is not an isolated example. Several years ago I was attending a seminar held in the main fire station of a town that had just received two matched custom chassis pumpers. While there, I watched this department (full career) respond to a call with a driver and an officer up front plus one fire fighter on the tailboard. What were the canopy seats for?
Not long ago, I looked at numerous pieces of apparatus at an exhibit. As far as I was able to determine, the reason that the various volunteer departments involved bought new fire engines was to have one bigger than the one some other department bought the previous year. Most of the apparatus was so large that I seriously doubt it would be possible to respond at anything even approaching Code 3 speeds.
What about the matched pair of 1500-gpm pumpers in a station that could not possibly flow anywhere near 1500 gpm? These rigs had both 6-inch intakes equipped with 4 ½-inch butterfly valves, and each had one 3-inch pony suction. Neither rig had any hard or soft suction hose, much less any large-diameter supply line; the largest hose carried was 3-inch. Considering the cost of those butterfly valves, I wondered if the person responsible for apparatus purchase in that city simply sat down with a catalog and said, “I want one of those, two of those, and why not give me a couple of these gadgets.”
Another town I visited had bought a 3000-gallon tanker. While this town had need of tankers, there was one minor problem with this particular piece of apparatus: Because of the steep, winding mountain roads it was unsafe for this department to let anyone drive the unit except for the three professional truckers who were members of the department (and being professional truckers, how often were they in town?).
I think that at least some of the problem stems from the fact that very few people in the fire service seem to know much or anything about trucks, yet trucks form the basis of all fire apparatus.
A good example of this arose recently when a fire chief asked why we had a 1500-gpm pump on a piece of apparatus with a 1500-gallon tank; after all, that pump would exhaust all the water in just a minute, and where would we be then? It took me a long time to explain to him that the size of the pump was determined by the horsepower of the engine, which in turn was determined by what the apparatus would weigh when loaded. He had never realized that a fire engine is designed from the ground up, not from the chrome and glitter down. In the case of our pumper-tanker, we determined what our needs were (1500 gallons of water, and then figured out what the apparatus would weigh when built; taking that figure (about 37,(XX) pounds), we looked at the altitude (7000 feet) and the terrain (including some good hills), plugged in our desired speed up those hills (not less than 30 mph) and came up with the proper engine (335 horsepower, turbocharged diesel). Then, and only then, did we even think about pump size. A simple telephone call to a pump manufacturer told us that, at our altitude, the largest pump capacity would be 1500 gpm. Taking that figure, we then looked at NFPA 1901, which said that with a 1500-gpm pump we could eliminate the 2 ½-inch rater] discharges, and substitute fewer, larger valves. We did this and ended up with four 3-inch discharges and their four attendant flow gages. Look at this for a moment: we could have rated the pump at 1250 gpm, but that would require five gages and five outlets, so the 1500-gpm rating actually cost less.
Of course, at this point, most fire departments would say that a 1250-gpm pump is cheaper than a 1500-gpm pump. I think this is another example of people not knowing much about the apparatus that they buy. Did you ever ask a pump manufacturer exactly how many different size pumps he makes? The answer might surprise you. For the particular pump we have on our rig, there are only two different sizes made for ratings from 1250 to 2000 gpm. The only difference in the two pumps is in the size of the impeller, and at our altitude any reputable apparatus manufacturer would have installed the larger of the two sizes. How, then, do you account for the different pump ratings? Very simply, just add or subtract rated discharges and there is your pump with the rating that you asked for. I was not quite sure when I was finished talking with this particular chief that he believed me, but I do think that he was totally amazed by my approach. Nonetheless, I think that we ended up with a unit that will do exactly what we need done.
Continued on page 20
Continued from page 19
Another point about pumps: how many departments that are modern enough to use large-diameter hose put 4-inch discharges on their pumps and, if they do, have any idea what that costs? Looking at our engine, we carry 5-inch hose both for use in the hydrant area and for relay pumping. When we want to relay pump (or lay a supply line to a manifold at the scene) we connect it to the 5-inch adapter on one of the 3-inch discharges. You don’t think that will work? Try it. We can pump the entire capacity of the pump through that valve and adapter with only a minimal pressure drop, and this combination was cheaper than a 4-inch discharge.
How often have you seen minipumpers on 1-ton chassis? Do you have any idea how many of them are loaded over the gross vehicle weight rating of the chassis? One easy way to find out is to listen to all of the complaints that the truck manufacturer did not install decent brakes. Unfortunately, that is not the problem. Most of the chassis have the largest brakes available, but they are being asked to stop more weight than they were designed to. Once again, we face the problem of the fire department that does not know how to specify apparatus, but there is also another side: I fail to understand why apparatus manufacturers continue to build units like this which are overloaded and unsafe.
Design and construction of fire apparatus is (or should be) a two-sided affair between the manufacturer and the fire department. Better yet, make that three-sided, and add in the dealer’s sales staff — if they know anything about fire apparatus. All too often when I see poorly designed fire apparatus and ask the department why they bought such a unit, they tell me that they let a salesman write the specifications. I think this reflects poorly on all parties involved.
Look at the pictures in the new delivery columns of the fire service journals and you will see lots of pictures of such-and-such department’s new pumper-tanker. Only problem is, the units shown are not pumper-tankers at all, and the departments that own them do not even know it. Since most of these rigs do not have any way to dump the water quickly from the tank and go to get another load, they really are pumpers with large booster tanks. Or again, look at the wonderful new tanker such-and-such department just received. Look carefully, and you will find only a 3-inch dump valve. What the department just bought is a large container for water, not a tanker. Or look at the tanker I saw recently which was built in such a way that it it would dump the water quickly if the proper controls were operated, but it is physically impossible to reach those controls while wearing turnout gear, so this tanker is also a large water container and not a tanker.
Having cast many aspersions on many people, I feel that I must now take a more positive approach. Having established that I do not think very highly of a lot of fire apparatus specifications, can I suggest any ways to make them better. Yes, I can, and will. First, however, I would point out that the responsibility for this lies mainly with the fire service, and not with the dealers and manufacturers; the latter have already established that they are going to supply what the market demands, so it is up to the market to change the demands. First and foremost, fire departments must start buying the apparatus they need, not what they think they would like to own.
For example, do you need to transport 2500 gallons to the fireground on first response? If the answer is yes, then what will be the best way to do this? Do you need a new tanker with a 2500-gallon tank, or would a unit with only 1500 gallons do a better job because of terrain and the availability of other apparatus? I realize that this may be blasphemous, but perhaps all you need is a 1000-gallon unit. With your existing equipment, plus a new automatic mutual-aid agreement with your neighboring departments, you might be able to save money on the new rig, provide better service and even be able to assist your neighboring departments for the first time. Since the 1000-gallon tanker will be considerably cheaper than the 2500-gallon unit you thought you needed, you can spend the money on preventing fires in the first place. Not only that, but if a fire does occur you may be able to get there faster with the smaller tanker and put the fire out quicker, saving lives, property and your time. This is only one simple example of how to do a needs assessment, which must be done before you begin to write your specifications.
O.K., your needs assessment has been done, and you have made rational and reasonable decisions about what you have to have for your new piece of equipment. Now what can you do? Start talking, especially to peop e outside of the fire service. Many people in the fire service tell me that diesel engines are unsuitable for fire equipment, but these people have never talked to engine and chassis manufacturers, or to mechanics and professional truck drivers. How many fire fighters know anything at all about truck tires? The information is easy to find. Talk to the truckers, to the tire salesmen, to the chassis builders, to the apparatus builders. Want to know the real story about fire pumps, find some fire department mechanics, some pump salesmen, some pump installers, read the articles in the fire service journals. Not until you have gathered all of the information that you really need are you ready to write your specifications. I have seen many sets of specifications that call for items that are unrealistic or even impossible, because the writer obviously did not gather the facts before he started to write.
There are many steps that lead to the purchase of good fire apparatus, but none of them is really difficult. What is required more than anything else is time; that, and a commitment to improving your fire department and the fire service in general. When the new rig arrives at your station, and everyone can see that it was designed and built properly, that it will do what needs doing, you will find that the time and commitment were more than worth it.
