When technology and fire apparatus are discussed, reactions vary. While technology that makes a rig safer is never questioned, its reliability often is. This month, we asked Bill Adams and Ricky Riley to offer their thoughts on fire apparatus technology.
It Doesn’t Matter What You Call It
BY BILL ADAMS
When firefighters interface with their apparatus, safety is priority one and is nonnegotiable. I started to address fire apparatus technology by saying that any technological innovation in fire apparatus design that benefits firefighters is to be commended regardless of if said innovation is mechanically or educationally oriented. This last sentence sounds good but is grammatically incorrect.
I don’t want to offend the innovators or the sales, marketing, and advertising folks in the fire apparatus industry. Nor do I want to incur the wrath of my late 12th grade English teacher’s ghost. But, there is a difference between innovation, technology, and technological. According to the dictionaries, an innovation means something has been invented or modernized. Technology means expertise and skill—which I deduce is having the knowledge and proficiency in accomplishing something. I interpret technological as the application of a disciplined or scientific approach to both technology and innovation. The three words have been intertwined.
Most manufacturers tout their products as the best things since apple pie and sliced bread. However, someone else might have gotten there first. Credit should be given where credit is due.
ELECTRIC FIRE TRUCKS
Over the past years, domestic manufacturers began introducing electrically powered apparatus. They weren’t the first. Neil Wallington’s 2022 book, The World Encyclopedia of Fire Engines, says electrically powered fire apparatus were introduced around 1905 by both French and British manufacturers. The concept only lasted four or five years, mainly because the batteries were too heavy and required frequent charging. Today’s manufacturers have improved the original innovations. If they sell a lot of them, they’ll have proven they have the technological know-how in doing so.
CHANGES
There can be debatable consequences for some innovations. Paraphrasing one of Newton’s laws of physics: For every action, there is an opposite reaction. An eccentric example is at the beginning of the American Civil War, when innovations in weaponry rendered ineffective the infamous mounted cavalry charges with flashing sabers and single-shot rifles. Hence, cavalry troops were used as dismounted infantry with every fifth soldier delegated to merely holding the reins of the other four troopers’ horses. Those horse-holders reduced the number of fighters on the line by 20%. It led to the demise of the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn.
Fast forward to today’s fire service and observe the concept of multitasking apparatus—in particular, quints. Innovations such as larger motors and increased axle carrying capacities increased the capabilities of quintuples. Hence, many fire departments embraced the concept of standalone quint companies. It has worked for some.
For others, it has not. In some career departments, city fathers no doubt applauded combining an engine company and ladder company, each staffed by four firefighters, into a single quint company staffed with just four firefighters. Staffing and equipment purchasing costs might be reduced by 50%. The city could be saving money, but the public and firefighters could suffer because of the lack of firefighters on the load. My examples are not—and I emphasize are not—disparaging the wide-ranging benefits of technology in the fire apparatus