By Christian P. Koop

Fire rescue vehicles are some of the hardest and riskiest vehicles to drive in traffic. Imagine driving with the emergency lights on and sirens blaring!

They are not only large and cumbersome but forced to respond in high-traffic areas where the behavior of drivers is unpredictable. We hear all too often in the news about the unfortunate accidents involving fire apparatus. These accidents happen during emergency calls as well as during normal nonemergency driving. Some of these accidents are very serious, sometimes with fatalities involving the emergency response vehicle drivers and crew members as well as the public. To me, there is an obvious need to try and reduce these unfortunate accidents.

With the current trend toward autonomous and/or connected vehicles, how can we incorporate this technology to make fire rescue vehicles responding to emergency scenes safer? Adapting this technology to emergency response vehicles (ERVs) will make the ERV and its crew members safer, improve public safety, and also significantly reduce costs and downtime associated with collisions-not to mention reduce average departmental response times. The savings alone could pay for system enhancements.

Although manufacturers have been doing an outstanding job of testing their software and improving the quality of their vehicles, gaps will exist in vehicles that are connected. In addition, there is a world full of “bad guys” who will try to exploit these vulnerabilities.

Technology Terms

Let’s review some basic areas of these new technologies, excluding any unique equipment used by fire-rescue apparatus. The definitions below are basic and broad for the main purpose of providing some insight into this very large and complex area of ever-changing motor vehicle technology.

In-Vehicle Infotainment. Also referred to as IVI, these are systems that deliver entertainment and information such as audio content and navigation systems for driving that are available from several automobile manufacturers. These systems sometimes incorporate Bluetooth technology and/or smartphones for driver control through voice controls, manual controls, or touchscreen. These systems access the Internet for weather, traffic conditions, breaking news, and other public broadcast information. They also can provide movies, games, social networking, text messaging, and phone calls.

V2V Communication. This system essentially allows vehicles to communicate with those in close proximity to each other for the purpose of knowing exactly where they are on the roadway in distance from each other to provide drivers with warnings to avoid possible accidents. It is considered the next safety improvement for automobiles in the near future for the United States. It could be integrated into automated braking and steering systems as a collision avoidance system to reduce accidents on U.S. roadways.

ADAS. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems are primarily designed as collision avoidance systems for automobiles that will take over control or assist the driver to prevent an accident. Considered one the fastest-growing segments in the automotive industry, ADAS receives inputs from various data sources and vehicle systems including radar, LiDAR (similar to radar but using laser light), automotive imaging systems, in-car networking, V2V, and phones or WiFi data networks.

Autonomous. As the name implies, cars and trucks with this technology can drive themselves without human assistance or input. There is an argument that these vehicles are technically automated and not autonomous because someone (human) is deciding or requ

By Christian P. Koop

Fire rescue vehicles are some of the hardest and riskiest vehicles to drive in traffic. Imagine driving with the emergency lights on and sirens blaring!

They are not only large and cumbersome but forced to respond in high-traffic areas where the behavior of drivers is unpredictable. We hear all too often in the news about the unfortunate accidents involving fire apparatus. These accidents happen during emergency calls as well as during normal nonemergency driving. Some of these accidents are very serious, sometimes with fatalities involving the emergency response vehicle drivers and crew members as well as the public. To me, there is an obvious need to try and reduce these unfortunate accidents.

With the current trend toward autonomous and/or connected vehicles, how can we incorporate this technology to make fire rescue vehicles responding to emergency scenes safer? Adapting this technology to emergency response vehicles (ERVs) will make the ERV and its crew members safer, improve public safety, and also significantly reduce costs and downtime associated with collisions-not to mention reduce average departmental response times. The savings alone could pay for system enhancements.

Although manufacturers have been doing an outstanding job of testing their software and improving the quality of their vehicles, gaps will exist in vehicles that are connected. In addition, there is a world full of “bad guys” who will try to exploit these vulnerabilities.

Technology Terms

Let’s review some basic areas of these new technologies, excluding any unique equipment used by fire-rescue apparatus. The definitions below are basic and broad for the main purpose of providing some insight into this very large and complex area of ever-changing motor vehicle technology.

In-Vehicle Infotainment. Also referred to as IVI, these are systems that deliver entertainment and information such as audio content and navigation systems for driving that are available from several automobile manufacturers. These systems sometimes incorporate Bluetooth technology and/or smartphones for driver control through voice controls, manual controls, or touchscreen. These systems access the Internet for weather, traffic conditions, breaking news, and other public broadcast information. They also can provide movies, games, social networking, text messaging, and phone calls.

V2V Communication. This system essentially allows vehicles to communicate with those in close proximity to each other for the purpose of knowing exactly where they are on the roadway in distance from each other to provide drivers with warnings to avoid possible accidents. It is considered the next safety improvement for automobiles in the near future for the United States. It could be integrated into automated braking and steering systems as a collision avoidance system to reduce accidents on U.S. roadways.

ADAS. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems are primarily designed as collision avoidance systems for automobiles that will take over control or assist the driver to prevent an accident. Considered one the fastest-growing segments in the automotive industry, ADAS receives inputs from various data sources and vehicle systems including radar, LiDAR (similar to radar but using laser light), automotive imaging systems, in-car networking, V2V, and phones or WiFi data networks.

Autonomous. As the name implies, cars and trucks with this technology can drive themselves without human assistance or input. There is an argument that these vehicles are technically automated and not autonomous because someone (human) is deciding or requ

By Christian P. Koop

Fire rescue vehicles are some of the hardest and riskiest vehicles to drive in traffic. Imagine driving with the emergency lights on and sirens blaring!

They are not only large and cumbersome but forced to respond in high-traffic areas where the behavior of drivers is unpredictable. We hear all too often in the news about the unfortunate accidents involving fire apparatus. These accidents happen during emergency calls as well as during normal nonemergency driving. Some of these accidents are very serious, sometimes with fatalities involving the emergency response vehicle drivers and crew members as well as the public. To me, there is an obvious need to try and reduce these unfortunate accidents.

With the current trend toward autonomous and/or connected vehicles, how can we incorporate this technology to make fire rescue vehicles responding to emergency scenes safer? Adapting this technology to emergency response vehicles (ERVs) will make the ERV and its crew members safer, improve public safety, and also significantly reduce costs and downtime associated with collisions-not to mention reduce average departmental response times. The savings alone could pay for system enhancements.

Although manufacturers have been doing an outstanding job of testing their software and improving the quality of their vehicles, gaps will exist in vehicles that are connected. In addition, there is a world full of “bad guys” who will try to exploit these vulnerabilities.

Technology Terms

Let’s review some basic areas of these new technologies, excluding any unique equipment used by fire-rescue apparatus. The definitions below are basic and broad for the main purpose of providing some insight into this very large and complex area of ever-changing motor vehicle technology.

In-Vehicle Infotainment. Also referred to as IVI, these are systems that deliver entertainment and information such as audio content and navigation systems for driving that are available from several automobile manufacturers. These systems sometimes incorporate Bluetooth technology and/or smartphones for driver control through voice controls, manual controls, or touchscreen. These systems access the Internet for weather, traffic conditions, breaking news, and other public broadcast information. They also can provide movies, games, social networking, text messaging, and phone calls.

V2V Communication. This system essentially allows vehicles to communicate with those in close proximity to each other for the purpose of knowing exactly where they are on the roadway in distance from each other to provide drivers with warnings to avoid possible accidents. It is considered the next safety improvement for automobiles in the near future for the United States. It could be integrated into automated braking and steering systems as a collision avoidance system to reduce accidents on U.S. roadways.

ADAS. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems are primarily designed as collision avoidance systems for automobiles that will take over control or assist the driver to prevent an accident. Considered one the fastest-growing segments in the automotive industry, ADAS receives inputs from various data sources and vehicle systems including radar, LiDAR (similar to radar but using laser light), automotive imaging systems, in-car networking, V2V, and phones or WiFi data networks.

Autonomous. As the name implies, cars and trucks with this technology can drive themselves without human assistance or input. There is an argument that these vehicles are technically automated and not autonomous because someone (human) is deciding or requ

By John Kenneweg

As today’s threat landscape continues to evolve and become more complex, the need for new, innovative technologies has only increased. First responders rely heavily on their toolkits to identify threats in the field with speed and confidence, making them a critical component of every mission.

In the early 2000s, the first handheld analytical tools for chemical identification were introduced. These tools not only changed the way in which chemicals were analyzed in the field; they also redefined the capabilities of the nontechnical user.

Capability gaps still exist, however, as some techniques have been slower to join the handheld revolution. For example, until recently, mass spec, a powerful chemical analysis technique, had yet to transition into a true handheld tool. Person-portable instruments that can operate downrange have been introduced, enabling some mass spec analysis in the field. However, because of size, weight, and complexity, along with ownership costs, widespread adoption was still limited.

Despite recent breakthroughs in mass spec, first responders have remained weary of its application, holding fast to the belief that it is both highly complicated and requires extensive “care and feeding.” While this idea is not entirely off base, the recent introduction of a new form of mass spec, high-pressure mass spectrometryTM (HPMS), has shattered these myths, allowing first responders to leverage the powerful capabilities of mass spec at the push of a button.

Let’s take a look at four major myths that exist in the industry to further understand how and why the aforementioned HPMS is debunking these notions as they relate to size, ease of use, cost, and toolkit capabilities.

Myth #1: Mass spectrometers are so big that we are going to need a mobile lab. It is true that traditional mass spectrometers are large, cumbersome instruments. The introduction of the portable mass spec systems was an undeniable step forward; however, today’s “luggable” instruments remain large, complex, and fragile, resulting in limited field deployment.

HPMS breaks all myths associated with the size of mass spectrometers, as it allows for several key components of the instrument to be miniaturized. It also removes the need for large, bulky vacuum pumps that limit conventional mass spec approaches. As a result, current HPMS tools weigh less than 2 kg (4.4 pounds) and are battery-powered for continuous operation in the field. Compared with conventional mass spectrometers, HPMS tools are 70 times lighter and consume about 100 times less power. For first responders, this means immediate answers in the field at the push of a button. Gone are the days of sending samples back to the centralized lab for testing.

Myth #2: Mass spec can only be performed by scientists and Ph.Ds. Traditional mass spectrometers are mostly confined to central laboratories. As such, first responders have held only one particular vision about who can operate the instruments: Ph.D.s in white lab coats. Again, this assumption is not entirely unfounded. Conventional mass spectrometers, those found in the centralized lab and their field-deployed “luggable” counterparts, are extremely complex and require extensive training to operate. Within a centralized lab setting, there is usually one individual with a Ph.D. who has been trained to run, interpret, and maintain the instrument-that’s how complex they are to operate.

Unlike conventional mass spec instruments, HPMS tools are simple to use. The tools require minimal training, meaning that responders can begin field use after just a f

By John Kenneweg

As today’s threat landscape continues to evolve and become more complex, the need for new, innovative technologies has only increased. First responders rely heavily on their toolkits to identify threats in the field with speed and confidence, making them a critical component of every mission.

In the early 2000s, the first handheld analytical tools for chemical identification were introduced. These tools not only changed the way in which chemicals were analyzed in the field; they also redefined the capabilities of the nontechnical user.

Capability gaps still exist, however, as some techniques have been slower to join the handheld revolution. For example, until recently, mass spec, a powerful chemical analysis technique, had yet to transition into a true handheld tool. Person-portable instruments that can operate downrange have been introduced, enabling some mass spec analysis in the field. However, because of size, weight, and complexity, along with ownership costs, widespread adoption was still limited.

Despite recent breakthroughs in mass spec, first responders have remained weary of its application, holding fast to the belief that it is both highly complicated and requires extensive “care and feeding.” While this idea is not entirely off base, the recent introduction of a new form of mass spec, high-pressure mass spectrometryTM (HPMS), has shattered these myths, allowing first responders to leverage the powerful capabilities of mass spec at the push of a button.

Let’s take a look at four major myths that exist in the industry to further understand how and why the aforementioned HPMS is debunking these notions as they relate to size, ease of use, cost, and toolkit capabilities.

Myth #1: Mass spectrometers are so big that we are going to need a mobile lab. It is true that traditional mass spectrometers are large, cumbersome instruments. The introduction of the portable mass spec systems was an undeniable step forward; however, today’s “luggable” instruments remain large, complex, and fragile, resulting in limited field deployment.

HPMS breaks all myths associated with the size of mass spectrometers, as it allows for several key components of the instrument to be miniaturized. It also removes the need for large, bulky vacuum pumps that limit conventional mass spec approaches. As a result, current HPMS tools weigh less than 2 kg (4.4 pounds) and are battery-powered for continuous operation in the field. Compared with conventional mass spectrometers, HPMS tools are 70 times lighter and consume about 100 times less power. For first responders, this means immediate answers in the field at the push of a button. Gone are the days of sending samples back to the centralized lab for testing.

Myth #2: Mass spec can only be performed by scientists and Ph.Ds. Traditional mass spectrometers are mostly confined to central laboratories. As such, first responders have held only one particular vision about who can operate the instruments: Ph.D.s in white lab coats. Again, this assumption is not entirely unfounded. Conventional mass spectrometers, those found in the centralized lab and their field-deployed “luggable” counterparts, are extremely complex and require extensive training to operate. Within a centralized lab setting, there is usually one individual with a Ph.D. who has been trained to run, interpret, and maintain the instrument-that’s how complex they are to operate.

Unlike conventional mass spec instruments, HPMS tools are simple to use. The tools require minimal training, meaning that responders can begin field use after just a f