Question: I wonder if you could help with a problem? My department is buying a new aerial device. Many on the committee believe that the unit should have a pump mounted on it. My department has two stations — one is an engine and medic and truck, the other a rescue unit and medic. This department is surrounded by a larger department that responds 37 engines, 11 trucks, and six rescue squads. My department operates with them, and we are an extension of each other, with the closest necessary response being made without consideration of jurisdictional boundaries.” What is your opinion?

Answer: There are lots of answers to your question — or, should I say, opinions of mine based on what you say. Some are logistically responsive, some budgetary-and-planning responsive, and some based on egos which will disrupt a smooth flow of service — in my opinion.

First, a pump on a truck is an efficient purchase only if your response area is served by two or three pumpers and one or two ladder trucks. So in light of the information in the second half of your question, I would say leave the pump off the specificatons. With the ability to use a fleet of that many units for response to water supply problems, you wouldn't or shouldn’t ever have to get primary water to the pump on your truck.

Second, it is difficult enough to have to think about where a truck is to be placed at the scene of a fire or emergency in order to be effective (a universal problem solved by slowing down and concentrating). If that is complicated by the possibility of needing a pump for first water, it becomes inefficient. In short, the unit will then never be in the best place to be an effective truck company and certainly will never be in position to hook up to a hydrant or other water source and still be used as a truck.

With the number of engine companies available, there is no reason for the truck officer or chauffeur (driver) or the members assigned to response and size-up on arrival to have to think about engine-company functions. The number of primary hose lines for structural attack can come from the pump of one or possibly two units. It is not necessary to confuse the site with a truck tryiing to get water. The quick water that a great truck would need on arrival to get into immediate interior positions would be available if you get in the habit of carrying an extinguisher — 2.5-gallon pressurized water will do. Guys that adhere to a "truck gets the hydrant" policy on the fireground usually do not have a clue why they are there in the first place.

An East-Coast community was able to get 13 handlines in place one evening at a structure fire in a three-story, commercial, dwelling-above, corner building with fire in the first floor rear of the store occupancy. They had pumps on all the trucks and all the trucks were proud to have water and lines stretched. The problem was: no one did truck work. No one vented; no one began a primary search; no one provided alternate entry-and-removal or exit paths to the occupied spaces. No one forced entry to the commercial store at the front. No one opened for extension. Seven people were killed on the top floor of this building, but there were 13 handlines in place. Get my drift (to use a Florida justice system quote)?

The key to successful removal of civilians caught within the structure fire on our arrival (whether rescues or simple removals) is truck work. Position one handline and one backup and advance to the fire area and assure that the building behaves! Truck work will get the line there quicker and keep it there and advancing. Search-and-removal tactics become routine and successful. Some companies that sell fire trucks must put the extra weight of a pump on the chassis to be able to operate the aerial device at low angles at increasing extensions and loads. Without the pump one company places a large cement block in place. Do you want to pay for the pump or get the cememt block for free? In short, I can think of no reason to put a pump on a truck if the available engine-company response is adequate. None!

Question: I can understand that you have some serious considerations for tactics that support strategic decisions on the fire ground and assignment of integrated functions, particularly truck work. What about many of us that are understaffed from the beginning? We have a truck company in our department. It is staffed by one firefighter. The officer and a second firefighter respond on the ambulance if it is in quarters. Most often I respond by myself with the aerial truck. What are your recommendations in this case?

Answer: Arrive safe and in a timely manner. Don your fire clothing and:

Take a bus!

You cannot even back a truck apparatus up without additional people much less make right turns safely AND watch for the right of way AND listen for additional information from dispatch AND arrival directions from command AND control the code 3 equipment AND think AND think AND think, and ... and ... and....

This is not to mention making the fire building a safer envelope for the fire department to operate in OR getting anything done safely when you get there other than safeguard the truck for the next Parade!

It is a danger to you and the public you protect to respond with one firefighter — the driver. Study hard, get promoted, get command and leadership and get into top-line management and change things and make a difference! Good luck!

Question: We recently received our new tower ladder. The unit will be replacing our old snorkel unit. Your remarks about aerial devices were key to the selection of a tower ladder. Since the arrival of this unit in our department, I have been questioned as to why we removed the master shutoff valve for the main waterway in the basket. My answer is that water trapped in the waterway when shutdown at the basket is still under pressure from the pump has to dissipate somewhere during movements, and we didn’t want to risk blowing seals or, worse, the waterway itself. What are your thoughts on shutoff valves in the basket? We also have a gated 2½-inch at the basket for other operations.

Answer: You are correct! With that said, let’s shoot the breeze some more and start with some “basics” (which almost always support a decision in seemingly sophisticated or imaginative innovations in today’s firefighting business).

Large caliber streams (more than 300 gallons per minute) are to be shut down primarily at the source! Secondary shutdown in emergency can be provided some length remote from the delivery site in the waterway.

In the case of elevated streams — the tower ladder stream, this law still applies. Shutdown is at the source pumper, then the relay pumper, then at the base of the tower period!

There is no reason for emergency shutdown or water control at any large caliber delivery stream. It is a defensive operation!

Now for the specifics.

You are correct in offering that the static and pulsating pressure caused by a pumping engine with a closed system will damage the waterway and seals. There are additional problems here.

What happens to the handlines also supplied by the pumping system (engine and relay engine) when a 650-or-more-gallon appliance shuts down without the notification to the pump operator???

Injuries in this case are not only at the tower location but at the turntable (if on an icy hill look out) but the increase in nozzle pressure to hand-held appliances will make for a bad day for a lot of firefighters.

Second, you don’t account for hydraulic basics. Water is basically incompressible. With the pipe shut down at the tip, you basically place a fluid rod within the waterway. Any lessening of the waterway from the bucket will split the pipe, burst the seams, and more. An out-of-service waterway puts the device out of service for six months of repair (and that is if you know someone at the “shops”).

You don’t even mention if you are in an area with real winter! No one ever shuts down a water device in freezing weather! Ever!

So enough said.

Besides, what kind of emergency would have the bucket people shut down? They are all over. You should have thought that aggressive strategy before you went “defensive.”

Now for the outlet valve in the tower.

Nonsense again!

You have a three-quarter-million-dollar apparatus that is the most aggressive and valuable firefighting tool on the fireground. It’s versatility and value lie in its maneuverability. Do not ever tie it to the structure while it serves as a standpipe for someone’s third handline or overhauling stream.

Handlines for this purpose can be formed in a 50-to-75-foot loop and taken by bucket to the operational location — window or roof — and DROPPED OFF!

So with all that said, enjoy the apparatus and innovate and then innovate some more. Figure out how to get special equipment to elevated locations. Practice movement with the least amount of hydraulic control movements. Learn the scrub area of your unit. Practice the deflected operations of the basket below the horizontal without crushing the cab and the equipment some buff type put under the boom! Have fun.

Question: “Tom, have you ever examined the problem we have on the West Coast with the lightweight construction? With the building boom we have had, it appears to me that the construction industry has changed the building standards. They use engineering that only considers the weight bearing of the material and not the time it will withstand fire stress. Phoenix Fire Department has performed a test on four types of housing construction under real fire conditions with the load of two firefighters on a roof. The average time of failure of the assembly was just 16 to 17.5 minutes. With our average response time of four minutes, it does not leave a lot of time for ladder company vertical ventilation tactics. It is obvious that legislation or recommendations from the NFPA is necessary. Thanks for your time. (Member, Glendale Fire Department, Arizona)

Answer: Nice to hear from ya, brother.

Well, I am really thankful that our present departments maintain a vigil of concern in this regard. In the mid-1960’s, most of the expert building codes changed their direction on building-product requirements because of the time all were spending in court with variances because of the new developments in space-age materials and engineering. They switched from a “Specification Code” to a “Performance Code.” That meant that, rather than specify what walls, floors, stairs, joists, beams, fire partitions, and the like were made from and dimensions necessary, it merely stated that, for example, a fire partition had to be of sufficient material to withstand the spread of fire for two hours. A floor assembly must be able to support a load of 80 (or more depending on occupancy) pounds/unit.

Now developed the lightweight wood and metal truss assemblies, the wooden “I” beam (now how is that for an oxymoron), and glued-together sheathing and worse.

Our present collapse-of-fire-building expert in the fire service was indirectly sued by the wood-products industry for using the term, “firefighter killing assemblies” in referring to lightweight wood trusses. They have been around for more than 30 years now, and we knew long ago that fire exposure would cause collapse or local failure in five minutes or less. But there is also additional information that you should digest with the dangers of these assemblies. We have seen standard operating procedures that state if the structure on fire is supported by lightweight truss assemblies, we will not enter the structure. But that is taking one-half of a story and making a rule. As an incident commander, I cannot afford to be tied up by such a rule. First, it is a dangerous assembly, ONLY if the fire is in the truss assembly itself! If the ceiling membrane separating the fire compartment from the truss assembly is intact, then all bets are off!

You guys in the Southwest, as well as we here in Florida, have a second problem. The codes are lightweight-oriented because there is no snow load to contend with. BUT, overload becomes a problem with trendy tiles and the like being used as roofing material and unplanned for as a load.

Now, as to your original question about vertical ventilation of fire buildings, let’s split them into commercial flat-roof structures and peak-roof private dwellings.

First you don’t need to be thinking of cutting a roof unless the fire is in the floor that is under the roof! A fire in a one-story building is always under the roof, and preparation for cutting is always a priority. Data gathering: communication here is essential as to fire spread to truss assemblies. Consequently, in multi-story, flat-roof buildings, vertical ventilation is just that. Open the structures that the roof assembly has in place, and do something else with your undermanned crew below.

Peak-roof, private dwellings are another matter. I usually advocate spending all the quality initial-arrival operation time locating the fire and removing the interior occupants. Roof venting of these buildings does not usually improve conditions in time to make a difference with the aggressive interior attack and the search-and-removal efforts.

The roof deck is the flimsiest construction in America, and if the fire is under it, failure before success is assured. Get the people out! EXCEPT (in our job there is always at least one exception to everything; that is why it is so impossible to make a rule!), except if skylights, those new and openable-from-below assemblies that are appearing in all our peaked roofs, are installed. A quick attempt to remove them is always result-oriented. One reason is that it assures that the fire condition below will get directly to the outer air without having to first burn through the Christmas decorations (I hope you have a sense of humor?)

So if you want a synopsis of my opinion (I guess you are lost by now in the Brooklynese!):

1. Hit the skylights if they are there in the peak roof.

2. Flat roofs are only a problem if the fire is directly under them.

3. Forget today’s peak-roof venting and get the undermanned fire crews inside to isolate the fire and search for and remove the civilian life load. Eighty percent of the civilians that die in fire each year die in these buildings.

4. Vent the peak roof if necessary with the second arriving hordes — whatever they are: second alarm, mutual aid, call-backs, etc.

5. Get the aerial device into the proximity of the peak roof buildings so that it can be used to its full advantage (preferably at the corner).

So now you know what I know; someone else will always enhance or reinforce any knowledge. Keep asking questions!

Question: What are your views on a two-tier entry system for the fire service? Here anyone with an engineering degree can apply for the “advertised” jobs that occur in top-line management. There is no requirements for fire service experience nor education. (From a career firefighter in Ireland.)

Answer: Hmm, not too familiar with this type of system, except that if you listen to the departments today, you would think that there were no requirements other than you say for our top-line leadership. In this country, our manning levels are almost nonexistant, and, basically, I blame it on our top-line leadership being unable to market our functions and results. To do that you must have the experience levels necessary.

But to your question.

I guess what you say is all right IF you never have any structural fires that progress above the rank of first-line supervision OR you have no fires OR all are surrounded on the exterior until the emergency runs out of fuel.

It would be (for me) like having an operating room totally supervised in every aspect by someone without any medical education or experience.

There is the argument that the management of today’s departments needs top-line managers and not highly educated firefighters. That is fine if they delegate the field operations to experienced personnel.

I would like to have been in the position of a litigation consultant when measuring the decisions of these people on the fire ground — just in dollar loss, never mind injuries and deaths to human beings.

So, I guess, to answer your question, no one is better off with that system — not the department, not the rank and file, not the service levels, not the people to be served. No one!

So, my answer to the question is that it is Bunk!

BACK TO Q & A TABLE OF CONTENTS

© Copyright Firenuggets.com 2000 • Click here for Terms and Conditions of Use