Menu

WFC News

Posted: Feb 19, 2018

Rear-Mount vs. Midmount Fire Apparatus

FA Viewpoints
 

Editor’s Note: Asking about midmount vs. rear-mount aerials can often create passionate debates. However, deciding on which to purchase should be based on the tactics you wish to achieve and the unique characteristics of your first due and surrounding areas. This month, we asked Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley to comment on midmount and rear-mount aerials.

 

Ricky Riley

Looking at both types of apparatus configurations, the decision for the purchase is truly based on the operational and geographic needs of your department. The midship-mount aerial is a small niche in the production of aerial ladder sales across the country. But, that does not mean that it does not have a place in the market or in a particular department. The standard rear-mount aerial is certainly the majority of the straight ladder market and has certain features that make it fit for most departments looking for a straight truck.

Midship-Mounted aerials

In a midship-mounted aerial, the turntable usually is right behind the cab, situating the device low on the frame rails and closer to the ground than the rear-mount aerial. Selecting a midship-mount does offer some tactical advantages for the department. One of these is a driving feel on the apparatus—by having this weight lower on the chassis and more centered, it will have less of a sway when taking corners. This is the feel that drivers experience with rear-mount aerials when the weight of the turntable and aerial is more elevated, situated behind the rear axles. That much weight moving in a direction opposite the turn can have a dramatic feel for the driver depending on the speed of the turn. With the lower turntable of the midship mount, this is reduced and creates less of an issue for drivers. With the advancement of driving technology and the use of electronic stability control, this sway is greatly reduced with the reduction of acceleration capabilities when the apparatus feels the turning speed affecting its stability.

Usually one of the main reasons for the midship-mount is a height restriction in older firehouses. With the device mounted low behind the cab, the overall height is greatly reduced. This turntable positioning also offers a tactical advantage for the ladder chauffeurs. These older firehouses with height restrictions are normally in older cities with very tight street layout and with numerous wires in the front and rear of the structures. The lower turntables can allow the operator to position the rig underneath the wires, rather than over top of them, which is how we would normally use the rear-mount aerial.

Another driving item with this type of rig is the rear swing out. A lot of the aerial and compartments are behind the rear axle, more or less hanging off the back. When navigating streets, the driver will need to be especially conscious of the rear end of the truck and the swing when taking corners. These vehicles, along with midship mount towers, require the driver to pay special attention to this as to not incur damage when taking these corners—especially in tight congested cities or towns.

The midship-mounted aerial’s turntable and ladder positioning greatly reduces compartment storage. Depending on the number of duties that your aerial device is required to acc

Read more
Posted: Feb 19, 2018

Apparatus Purchasing: 30 Days Is Not Enough Time To Bid on a Fire Truck

I believe there are three reasons to expedite the purchase of a new fire truck. Two are valid, and one isn’t.

The first and easiest to justify is when an emergency purchase is warranted to replace an essential rig that is unexpectedly and permanently placed out of service. An example would be when a department’s sole aerial ladder is no longer serviceable, a spare rig is not available, and mutual aid is not feasible. Second is when the purchasing authority has to expend funds within a certain time frame, such as with grant monies or when job-specific budgeted funding may expire (you don’t use it, you lose it). The last and perhaps a controversial reason is political. A member of the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) or the fire department hierarchy may want a “feather in the cap” for electoral purposes. Let’s get a new rig on order or delivered before the elections; I need the votes. That is a crass statement and a calculated maneuver but one not unheard of. In most other instances, the purchasing process plods along at a pace convenient to the fire department. These are the instances addressed herein.

Apparatus purchasing committees (APCs) have been known to labor for well over a year to develop a set of purchasing specifications. That time frame is common in departments that purchase infrequently as well as in departments that do not have an administrative staff devoted to apparatus procurement. Unless it is a scenario similar to the three mentioned above, the AHJ seldom badgers an APC to step up the pace. No one seems to care about the length of time required to develop a set of specifications provided that the department specs exactly what it needs and wants. APCs are usually encouraged to take their time and get it right. Kudos to committees that investigate and evaluate.

NFPA 1901

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, Annex B, sentence B.3—Obtaining and Studying Proposals states, “When the specifications are complete, they should be distributed to apparatus manufacturers and contractors with a request for bids or proposals to furnish the specified apparatus. The request should specify a date, time, and place for the formal opening of the bids. This date should allow at least one month for the engineering departments of apparatus manufacturers to study the specifications and estimate the cost of the apparatus. More time could be required if engineering drawings of the proposed apparatus are required.” NFPA 1901 also states, “This annex is not part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.”

Fire Apparatus Purchasing Handbook, by William C. Peters, states, “Most would agree that unless specifications are extremely complicated, 30 days should be sufficient and fair for all bidders to complete their work. If bids are accepted by mail, the time frame should be slightly longer to compensate for this process.”

The 30-day time frame, while generally accepted as a norm, is to my knowledge not a written requirement of any regulatory agency. No one knows where the historical 30-day figure originated or why it was chosen. It may be one of those unchallenged fire service traditions that has never been questioned. It should be.

Unawareness or Deceit?

After the technical nuts-and-bolts portion of purchasing specifications is completed, the front sheets (aka the boilerplate), including the basic legal requirements, are usually addressed. This is when and where the 30-day time frame is normally integrated

Read more
Posted: Feb 19, 2018

Apparatus Purchasing: 30 Days Is Not Enough Time To Bid on a Fire Truck

I believe there are three reasons to expedite the purchase of a new fire truck. Two are valid, and one isn’t.

The first and easiest to justify is when an emergency purchase is warranted to replace an essential rig that is unexpectedly and permanently placed out of service. An example would be when a department’s sole aerial ladder is no longer serviceable, a spare rig is not available, and mutual aid is not feasible. Second is when the purchasing authority has to expend funds within a certain time frame, such as with grant monies or when job-specific budgeted funding may expire (you don’t use it, you lose it). The last and perhaps a controversial reason is political. A member of the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) or the fire department hierarchy may want a “feather in the cap” for electoral purposes. Let’s get a new rig on order or delivered before the elections; I need the votes. That is a crass statement and a calculated maneuver but one not unheard of. In most other instances, the purchasing process plods along at a pace convenient to the fire department. These are the instances addressed herein.

Apparatus purchasing committees (APCs) have been known to labor for well over a year to develop a set of purchasing specifications. That time frame is common in departments that purchase infrequently as well as in departments that do not have an administrative staff devoted to apparatus procurement. Unless it is a scenario similar to the three mentioned above, the AHJ seldom badgers an APC to step up the pace. No one seems to care about the length of time required to develop a set of specifications provided that the department specs exactly what it needs and wants. APCs are usually encouraged to take their time and get it right. Kudos to committees that investigate and evaluate.

NFPA 1901

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, Annex B, sentence B.3—Obtaining and Studying Proposals states, “When the specifications are complete, they should be distributed to apparatus manufacturers and contractors with a request for bids or proposals to furnish the specified apparatus. The request should specify a date, time, and place for the formal opening of the bids. This date should allow at least one month for the engineering departments of apparatus manufacturers to study the specifications and estimate the cost of the apparatus. More time could be required if engineering drawings of the proposed apparatus are required.” NFPA 1901 also states, “This annex is not part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.”

Fire Apparatus Purchasing Handbook, by William C. Peters, states, “Most would agree that unless specifications are extremely complicated, 30 days should be sufficient and fair for all bidders to complete their work. If bids are accepted by mail, the time frame should be slightly longer to compensate for this process.”

The 30-day time frame, while generally accepted as a norm, is to my knowledge not a written requirement of any regulatory agency. No one knows where the historical 30-day figure originated or why it was chosen. It may be one of those unchallenged fire service traditions that has never been questioned. It should be.

Unawareness or Deceit?

After the technical nuts-and-bolts portion of purchasing specifications is completed, the front sheets (aka the boilerplate), including the basic legal requirements, are usually addressed. This is when and where the 30-day time frame is normally integrated

Read more
Posted: Feb 19, 2018

Apparatus Purchasing: 30 Days Is Not Enough Time To Bid on a Fire Truck

I believe there are three reasons to expedite the purchase of a new fire truck. Two are valid, and one isn’t.

The first and easiest to justify is when an emergency purchase is warranted to replace an essential rig that is unexpectedly and permanently placed out of service. An example would be when a department’s sole aerial ladder is no longer serviceable, a spare rig is not available, and mutual aid is not feasible. Second is when the purchasing authority has to expend funds within a certain time frame, such as with grant monies or when job-specific budgeted funding may expire (you don’t use it, you lose it). The last and perhaps a controversial reason is political. A member of the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) or the fire department hierarchy may want a “feather in the cap” for electoral purposes. Let’s get a new rig on order or delivered before the elections; I need the votes. That is a crass statement and a calculated maneuver but one not unheard of. In most other instances, the purchasing process plods along at a pace convenient to the fire department. These are the instances addressed herein.

Apparatus purchasing committees (APCs) have been known to labor for well over a year to develop a set of purchasing specifications. That time frame is common in departments that purchase infrequently as well as in departments that do not have an administrative staff devoted to apparatus procurement. Unless it is a scenario similar to the three mentioned above, the AHJ seldom badgers an APC to step up the pace. No one seems to care about the length of time required to develop a set of specifications provided that the department specs exactly what it needs and wants. APCs are usually encouraged to take their time and get it right. Kudos to committees that investigate and evaluate.

NFPA 1901

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, Annex B, sentence B.3—Obtaining and Studying Proposals states, “When the specifications are complete, they should be distributed to apparatus manufacturers and contractors with a request for bids or proposals to furnish the specified apparatus. The request should specify a date, time, and place for the formal opening of the bids. This date should allow at least one month for the engineering departments of apparatus manufacturers to study the specifications and estimate the cost of the apparatus. More time could be required if engineering drawings of the proposed apparatus are required.” NFPA 1901 also states, “This annex is not part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.”

Fire Apparatus Purchasing Handbook, by William C. Peters, states, “Most would agree that unless specifications are extremely complicated, 30 days should be sufficient and fair for all bidders to complete their work. If bids are accepted by mail, the time frame should be slightly longer to compensate for this process.”

The 30-day time frame, while generally accepted as a norm, is to my knowledge not a written requirement of any regulatory agency. No one knows where the historical 30-day figure originated or why it was chosen. It may be one of those unchallenged fire service traditions that has never been questioned. It should be.

Unawareness or Deceit?

After the technical nuts-and-bolts portion of purchasing specifications is completed, the front sheets (aka the boilerplate), including the basic legal requirements, are usually addressed. This is when and where the 30-day time frame is normally integrated

Read more
Posted: Feb 19, 2018

Fire Apparatus Headlights: A Lot to Know

 
fama forum By Sam Massa
Fire Apparatus Manufactures Association logo

Not all fire trucks need a pump. Not all trucks need a ladder.

But, one thing every fire apparatus needs is a set of headlights. In the United States, virtually every area of the fire apparatus has been enhanced, improved, and given significant funding by spec committees to improve the safety of the crews.

In an era of “Million-Dollar Fire Apparatus” equipped with the latest technology from many Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA) member companies, it is surprising that these purpose-built ultra-high-end tools are still sometimes fitted with headlights whose design has not changed significantly since the 1960s.

Headlight Platforms

When it comes to headlights for fire apparatus, there are two primary platforms apparatus manufacturers use: a molded headlight like you’d see on most passenger vehicles (less common) and a set of “sealed-beam” headlights, typically found in sets of four in the firefighting industry. The automotive-style molded headlight is often found on modern commercial cab chassis, and because of its mass production design focus, this design is less configurable by the apparatus specifying committee. The sealed-beam variety, however, is a platform with a seemingly never-ending list of configuration options. These options include halogen, HID, and LED source types with features like integrated halo park lamps, lens heaters, and pressure-equalizing vent valves.

When I ask firefighters, “If you could wave a magic wand, what would you change about the lighting on your rig?” I consistently hear, “THE HEADLIGHTS!” It surprises me every time, especially with the frequency with which I see apparatus committees specifying apparatus with $40,000 of scene lights and $200 of 1950s glass and halogen archaic headlights. Why? Often, it appears to boil down to cost. A set of four properly designed and certified LED headlights can cost anywhere from $800 to $1,500 per set. Are they worth it? That depends on what’s important to you. An LED headlight should never burn out, should produce significantly more light than a halogen, and should allow for operation in any weather for the life of the apparatus.

Headlight FAQs

As technologies continue to emerge, fire departments often look for ways to upgrade their fleets. A few common questions/comments fire apparatus manufacturers hear related to headlights follow.

“If I need to see while I am pulling up to a scene, I’ll just turn the brow lights on.”

Despite how tempting this may be, driving with auxiliary scene lighting switched to “on” above the level of the apparatus’ headlights is illegal in most states. In most situations, as vehicles approach a motorist traveling in the opposite direction, the headlights serve as an early indicator of their presence. Even around bends and winds in the road, other vehicles’ headlights serve to let you know, “Hey, we’re coming,” and allow you to prepare to meet them (and if your high beams are on, to switch them back to low-beam mode). When a fire truck is driving with its forward-facing scene lights on, the overwhelming power of those fixtures easily drowns out the early indication of the approach of that passing motorist. In turn, when the vehicles finally meet, the apparatus im

Read more
RSS
First49524953495449554957495949604961Last

Theme picker

Search News Articles