By Alan M. Petrillo

With fire departments trying to cram as much equipment on their pumpers as possible, manufacturers have responded by shrinking pump panels and relocating pumps and discharges on fire apparatus to give firefighters the room they want and need on their vehicles.

A large part of the efforts by apparatus and pump manufacturers has been to shrink pump panels and their associated equipment to free up space for other uses.

Saving and Creating Space

1 This Spotsylvania (VA) Fire Department PUC pumper made by Pierce Manufacturing features a pump panel on the driver’s side that is slim and has clear compartmentation on the officer’s side. (Photo courtesy of Pierce Manufacturing.)

John Schultz, director of pumper and custom chassis products for Pierce Manufacturing Inc., says Pierce’s PUC product line has continued in popularity, likely because of the slim size of the pump house and panel area. “The pump is located between the frame rails, which allows crosslays to come down from their historically high location on top of the pump house,” Schultz says. “The 31-inch-wide PUC pump panel is on the driver’s side only, allowing additional compartmentation on the officer’s side and saving wheelbase on the vehicle. Because of this, we are able to replace the officer’s side panel with a full-height-and-depth compartment.”

On the traditional custom pumpers that Pierce builds, Schultz notes that Pierce is achieving pump panel savings by using end suction pumps over traditional full body midship pumps. “The intake and discharge manifolding is typically cast by the OEM body building, which allows for a unique configuration of intake manifolding,” Schultz says. “The reconfiguration saves space by being more compact, as is shown in our FXP entry-level commercial pumper with a 45-inch-wide pump panel.”

Some departments are opting for smaller hydraulically-driven pumps packed in or underneath a transverse compartment or the pump compartment, Schultz says. “Typically we see them on aerials where the pump would be 250 to 300 gallons per minute (gpm) and might feed a front bumper crosslay or other discharges,” he adds. “The small pump panel controls would be under the transverse compartment, tucked away. The San Diego (CA) Fire Department has used that type of pump with a 10-inch-wide pump panel and electric valve controllers and gauges for quite a while now.”

2 E-ONE offers its eMAX pump panel on both side-mount and top-mount (shown) pumpers, aerials, and tankers. The top-mount version gains two large compartments on each side and a very narrow pump module. (Photo courtesy of E-ONE.)

Grady North, product manager for E-ONE, says his company’s eMAX pumper has become a very popular option among fire departments, so much so that E-ONE expanded the product to include aerials and tankers

Richard Marinucci

Incidents involving hazardous materials are handled much differently than the majority of calls to which fire departments respond.

To most firefighters, the response to incidents involving hazardous materials is very slow and methodical - not what many firefighters expected when they signed on for the job. But, experience and regulations have shown that this approach is best. Reprogramming personnel to respond in this manner is necessary and important so that the incident is handled properly. There is a great deal of training, education, practice, and discipline necessary for the entire department. The infrequency of these events makes this more challenging, so an organization’s leadership must constantly make everyone aware of the methods necessary to be successful.

Hazmat Philosophy

In recent years, the fire service has approached risk management during incidents by adopting a philosophy to risk a lot to save a lot, risk a little to save a little, and risk nothing so save nothing. There may be some variation on the wording, but the thought is that firefighters should not be endangered for anything that is worthless. For the big risks, firefighters generally act on their previous experiences, using recognition and prime decision making, and take little time to ponder the situation. In contrast to this, responders to known hazmat events will slow down and gather as much information as possible before deciding to act. This will include research, planning, and safety considerations. The dangers present at fires and hazmat incidents are real, but firefighters will take more risks at a fire. This could be a result of less experience and more preparation regarding the proper way to handle the event. It could also be because of strict regulations that specify certain actions and approaches for this work.

For most firefighters, there is not much history regarding hazmat incident response. They have not had any time to build up any recognition prime decision making through response or from vicarious learning through those who have preceded them. This contrasts fire response where “probies” can learn from their elders, though this can be good or bad depending on the experiences of the senior person. Since hazmat responses are infrequent, there is not much first-hand knowledge or skill to pass on. To add to the challenges, modern hazmat response is in its relative infancy. The service continues to evolve based on lessons learned and improved science.

Preparation

So, the challenge to fire departments is to be prepared for incidents that are very infrequent but have significant consequences if not handled properly. This preparation must also include a “reprogramming” of firefighters from their “all ahead full” approach to their regular and routine calls. For whatever reason, many firefighters have no interest in hazmat responses, as they would prefer to hand them over to specialists. They have no desire to delve too deeply into the area and are not generally motivated to learn more than the bare minimum. They also are challenged to maintain their skills in many other areas, so time can be a factor. If something is to fall off the training agenda, it is likely to be items of minimal interest.

In basic recruit school, firefighters are given some of the basics of hazmat responses. For example, those in training for Firefighter I and II are also given hazmat awareness and operations classes (at least in Michigan). Regulations require continuing education in some of the basics to maintain k

Richard Marinucci

Incidents involving hazardous materials are handled much differently than the majority of calls to which fire departments respond.

To most firefighters, the response to incidents involving hazardous materials is very slow and methodical - not what many firefighters expected when they signed on for the job. But, experience and regulations have shown that this approach is best. Reprogramming personnel to respond in this manner is necessary and important so that the incident is handled properly. There is a great deal of training, education, practice, and discipline necessary for the entire department. The infrequency of these events makes this more challenging, so an organization’s leadership must constantly make everyone aware of the methods necessary to be successful.

Hazmat Philosophy

In recent years, the fire service has approached risk management during incidents by adopting a philosophy to risk a lot to save a lot, risk a little to save a little, and risk nothing so save nothing. There may be some variation on the wording, but the thought is that firefighters should not be endangered for anything that is worthless. For the big risks, firefighters generally act on their previous experiences, using recognition and prime decision making, and take little time to ponder the situation. In contrast to this, responders to known hazmat events will slow down and gather as much information as possible before deciding to act. This will include research, planning, and safety considerations. The dangers present at fires and hazmat incidents are real, but firefighters will take more risks at a fire. This could be a result of less experience and more preparation regarding the proper way to handle the event. It could also be because of strict regulations that specify certain actions and approaches for this work.

For most firefighters, there is not much history regarding hazmat incident response. They have not had any time to build up any recognition prime decision making through response or from vicarious learning through those who have preceded them. This contrasts fire response where “probies” can learn from their elders, though this can be good or bad depending on the experiences of the senior person. Since hazmat responses are infrequent, there is not much first-hand knowledge or skill to pass on. To add to the challenges, modern hazmat response is in its relative infancy. The service continues to evolve based on lessons learned and improved science.

Preparation

So, the challenge to fire departments is to be prepared for incidents that are very infrequent but have significant consequences if not handled properly. This preparation must also include a “reprogramming” of firefighters from their “all ahead full” approach to their regular and routine calls. For whatever reason, many firefighters have no interest in hazmat responses, as they would prefer to hand them over to specialists. They have no desire to delve too deeply into the area and are not generally motivated to learn more than the bare minimum. They also are challenged to maintain their skills in many other areas, so time can be a factor. If something is to fall off the training agenda, it is likely to be items of minimal interest.

In basic recruit school, firefighters are given some of the basics of hazmat responses. For example, those in training for Firefighter I and II are also given hazmat awareness and operations classes (at least in Michigan). Regulations require continuing education in some of the basics to maintain k

Richard Marinucci

Incidents involving hazardous materials are handled much differently than the majority of calls to which fire departments respond.

To most firefighters, the response to incidents involving hazardous materials is very slow and methodical - not what many firefighters expected when they signed on for the job. But, experience and regulations have shown that this approach is best. Reprogramming personnel to respond in this manner is necessary and important so that the incident is handled properly. There is a great deal of training, education, practice, and discipline necessary for the entire department. The infrequency of these events makes this more challenging, so an organization’s leadership must constantly make everyone aware of the methods necessary to be successful.

Hazmat Philosophy

In recent years, the fire service has approached risk management during incidents by adopting a philosophy to risk a lot to save a lot, risk a little to save a little, and risk nothing so save nothing. There may be some variation on the wording, but the thought is that firefighters should not be endangered for anything that is worthless. For the big risks, firefighters generally act on their previous experiences, using recognition and prime decision making, and take little time to ponder the situation. In contrast to this, responders to known hazmat events will slow down and gather as much information as possible before deciding to act. This will include research, planning, and safety considerations. The dangers present at fires and hazmat incidents are real, but firefighters will take more risks at a fire. This could be a result of less experience and more preparation regarding the proper way to handle the event. It could also be because of strict regulations that specify certain actions and approaches for this work.

For most firefighters, there is not much history regarding hazmat incident response. They have not had any time to build up any recognition prime decision making through response or from vicarious learning through those who have preceded them. This contrasts fire response where “probies” can learn from their elders, though this can be good or bad depending on the experiences of the senior person. Since hazmat responses are infrequent, there is not much first-hand knowledge or skill to pass on. To add to the challenges, modern hazmat response is in its relative infancy. The service continues to evolve based on lessons learned and improved science.

Preparation

So, the challenge to fire departments is to be prepared for incidents that are very infrequent but have significant consequences if not handled properly. This preparation must also include a “reprogramming” of firefighters from their “all ahead full” approach to their regular and routine calls. For whatever reason, many firefighters have no interest in hazmat responses, as they would prefer to hand them over to specialists. They have no desire to delve too deeply into the area and are not generally motivated to learn more than the bare minimum. They also are challenged to maintain their skills in many other areas, so time can be a factor. If something is to fall off the training agenda, it is likely to be items of minimal interest.

In basic recruit school, firefighters are given some of the basics of hazmat responses. For example, those in training for Firefighter I and II are also given hazmat awareness and operations classes (at least in Michigan). Regulations require continuing education in some of the basics to maintain k

By Jonathan M. Hinson

Firefighting foam has been around for many years, from the powder foam to protein foam to the synthetic foam in use today.

Originally designed to extinguish simple hydrocarbon-based fuel fires, today’s foams can be used on Class A fires and alcohol-based fuel fires and, of course, foam is still used for hydrocarbon fuel fires. Technology has advanced to make foam operations more effective, simplistic, and cost-effective. Flammable and combustible liquids are everywhere and being transported through all modes of transportation. Hopefully, all fire departments have enough foam resources readily available to effect a rescue from a flammable liquid incident. Some communities may have a higher risk or threat, so more foam resources are needed. Whether a department has an eductor and three buckets of foam or thousands of gallons of foam with master stream devices, there are still some basic principles and tips that can apply to both situations that will facilitate a successful foam operation.

Foam 101

Foam has been a source of frustration for many firefighters over the years, as making an effective finished foam blanket can be a challenge. Most foam equipment is very simple in operation, but there are complex systems on apparatus that require in-depth knowledge for operation. Regardless of the system being used, making finished foam without failure requires knowledge of basic principles and the equipment and supplies being used. The foam must also be properly applied to ensure complete extinguishment and prevent reignition.

As taught in most basic firefighting classes, four components are required to make finished Class B foam. Foam concentrate is the first component needed, which is commercially manufactured by both domestic and international companies. The foam concentrate is then introduced into water to form a foam solution. Next, the foam solution is mixed with air either by expelling it into the air through a standard nozzle or while passing through an air-aspirating foam nozzle. The foam must also be agitated, which can occur in a foam nozzle or on contact with a surface after leaving the nozzle. When these four components come together, the result is finished foam that can be used to extinguish flammable/combustible liquid fires or prevent ignition of flammable vapors. If any of these four components are missing, the Class B foam operation will not be effective and possibly fail completely.

There are two common types of foam, Class A and Class B, that equate to the types of fires they are effective on. Class B foams create a film or membrane over the surface of a fuel to prevent vapor production. The higher the expansion rate of the foam application, the longer the blanket will last, and also less foam concentrate will be used during reapplications during longer term incidents. Class A foams break down the surface tension of a fuel, allowing the water to penetrate quicker and deeper. Making a thick foam blanket is not required with Class A foam because the bubbles have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the foam.

Using the wrong type of foam can cause an ineffective firefight, leading to someone getting hurt. Class A foam cannot be used on a Class B fire. Class A foams do not make the needed film to smother the fire and prevent the production of vapors needed for combustion. Class A foam could slow the fire down and even extinguish a small flammable liquid fire somewhat, but even the small fire is going to quickly degrade the foam and allow the fire to reignite. The sudden and often unexpected reignition can injure the firefighters on scene who have possibly let their guard down after seeing extinguishment.

Applying Class B foam to a Class A fire is not as dangerous but can be ineffective. Some br