 |
|
David Wunderlin |
Today’s fire departments across the United States and around the world must respond not only to their emergency calls for assistance but also to the challenges in the ever-changing global economy.
Fire departments are continually impacted by budget constraints, and they face such hurdles as reduced staffing, extended vehicle replacement schedules, and station closures, to name a few. Most, if not all, organizations have been through some really trying times in the past few years. As leaders in the fire protection industry, we must consider doing more with less instead of slipping into the somewhat misleading viewpoint of the “new normal.”
 |
| 1 Many departments have found that the smaller chassis not only are more maneuverable, allowing for an expedited response, but also are more economical in initial purchase cost, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. These smaller chassis are also much safer to operate. (Photos courtesy of Maintainer Custom Bodies.) |
One plan of attack of late for increasing efficiency and reducing operational costs is to “downsize response.” This is a call for making a transition from the long-standing approach that “bigger is better.” Historically, we have designed apparatus for “all hazards” response types. Remember the quint? It is now a reality that departments must continually refine their approach to incident response and operations. To make this comprehensive transition, departments need to evaluate their historical data and identify a new strategy for their apparatus requirements, developing designs based on what would characterize the majority of their initial response criteria.
Equipment Needs Evaluation
With this type of process, departments must create a complete evaluation of the equipment they need to carry and how to strategically place that equipment. The initial step is to define the mission and qualify the priorities based on the historical data. Some basic key factors for evaluation include the following:
- What functions will the new apparatus be required to perform?
- How many riding positions will need to be accommodated?
- What kind of terrain is the response area?
- What style body best lends itself to the overall operation?
- Does the body style allow access in and out with the equipment required to be carried?
Understandably, departments must be realistic in evaluating their needs. They must determine what is necessary to get the job done, including transporting both personnel and equipment to and from the incident. More times than not, agencies faced with developing a plan to downsize their response arrive at a conclusion that, ultimately, the vast majority of responses can be addressed by a vehicle that is substantially smaller. The trend is to use smaller rescue and quick-attack vehicles fo