By Chris McLoone

I thought we were doing pretty well during 2013 regarding motor vehicle accidents involving fire apparatus.

I would never kid myself and assume that we would get through a year without any apparatus accidents. They are called accidents for a reason. But then right at the end of the year, there seemed to be a flurry of accidents. In one state, a state trooper and two firefighters were injured when a police cruiser struck the apparatus. I'm not ready just yet to discuss that the apparatus operator in this case is 74 years old. But, stay tuned because that discussion is coming.

In another state, an apparatus rollover injured two firefighters. In this case, the apparatus was reportedly run off the road and ended up on its roof. A week before that, an apparatus accident injured the civilian driver involved in the crash a day after a crash involving an apparatus and SUV injured four civilians, two critically.

Amid this troublesome spate of apparatus accidents came news that one fire department discovered after a crash involving two apparatus that most of its firefighters don't wear seat belts to or from emergency incidents. Additionally, it uncovered that many of the apparatus in this department's fleet had safety devices, like seat belt alarms, disabled. The story made its way to the newswires and was also covered by the local news. I think it's great that it received the attention it did.

Let's talk about seat belts first. To address the seat belt problem, the department mentioned above is now adding a reminder to all dispatches that members wear their seat belts en route to the call. This isn't a really new concept. I was listening to some online audio recently of a larger fire department. In years past when dispatchers there transmitted a box alarm, they would end the transmission with, "All operators use caution when responding." However, when I was listening recently, that phrase was replaced with reminders to use caution, wear seat belts, and so on. And, this really has me thinking: In this day and age, why should any department have to go to such lengths to ensure its personnel wear seat belts? We wear them in our cars. We tell our children to wear them. It is absolutely unacceptable that we don't assume ownership of our own safety to and from emergency incidents.

That's a little bit of a change of course for me-calling into question whether we own our safety. In previous columns, I've called on the officer riding the seat to ensure his crew is belted before departing the firehouse. But at this stage of the game, he should not have to. Twenty years ago when I started my first academy classes, I recall my instructor telling us that as hard as it might be to consider, we are number one, not the victim we are searching for. If things go south, we are to consider our safety first. The concept is hotly debated, but my reason for bringing it up here is that from a very early point, looking out for our own safety is drilled into us. Why are we not translating that into our response to and from the scene? Wear your seat belt. It's a real easy direction.

Now, as far as tampering with safety devices, we are passed the point of worrying about who did it and why. I'm sure it has happened in other places. But, consider the ramifications of tampering with such safety devices. When your truck is delivered, it is compliant with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 1901), Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. NFPA 1901 compliance involves many, many features designed to keep you safe during an emergency response-and even operating at nonemergency speed. In what world does it make sense to tamper with these safety devices, rendering the apparatus noncompliant? It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone would consider this a good idea.

Departments, assume a zero tolerance policy for not wearing seat belts. And anyone who tampers with a s

By Bill Adams

The apparatus purchasing committee (APC) represents the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), which in this article is any political subdivision subject to a competitive bidding protocol. It's also referred to as the purchaser or the fire department. "Vendor" is synonymous with dealer, salesperson, manufacturer, or whoever sells fire trucks.

When writing fire apparatus purchasing specifications (specs), fire departments can initiate a bizarre chain of events that defies logic. Included are peculiar trends and strange changes in human behavior. Some are foreseeable while others are not. Everyone knows it happens; most don't know why. Few admit it. Some don't care. And, nobody wants to address legality and ethical correctness.

Welcome to the hidden world of spec writing where abnormal behavior can occur daily but is seldom acknowledged. Some in the fire service believe if the subject is ignored, it will quietly go away. Others erroneously believe APCs are immune from reality and reality's ramifications. They may be sadly mistaken. The public bidding arena is becoming more competitive. The future may find purchasers held more accountable for their actions than they have been in the past. Times are changing-be prepared.

Getting Help

Many suburban volunteer and small career fire departments purchase fire apparatus on an infrequent basis. Consequently, some need help with their specs and select a preferred vendor "to work with." That is a polite way of saying that the vendor is going to "help" the APC write its purchasing specifications. Quite often, the vendor physically writes the entire document. It's a common practice of questionable legality that fire departments would rather not discuss. Nonpreferred vendors may grouse about the practice, but most reluctantly accept it. They've been on both sides of the fence.

After choosing a vendor, the APC makes a decision to write, or have written for it, an open or a proprietary spec or some combination thereof. In my opinion, most fire departments write specs tailored around a specific manufacturer. It's commonplace and, again, most purchasers disavow knowledge of the practice. A trend of denial is becoming apparent. I am not criticizing purchasers who know whose rig they are going to buy and write proprietary specifications to ensure it. Judgment is not passed on using the public bidding process to legally justify a predetermined decision. Regardless of being right, wrong, or indifferent, those are local and personal decisions. However, there is a word of caution. Although purchasers may claim ignorance of their questionable spec-writing techniques, they should realize the rest of the world knows exactly what they are doing-and why. Vanity has no place in writing apparatus purchasing specifications. Fire departments adhering to a competitive public bidding protocol usually begrudge those that don't. They wish they too could just buy what they want minus the red tape. Ironically, most deny being envious-it's not professional. The denial trend continues.

Buyers, when asking a vendor to help write an open specification, exercise caution. Most vendors have been around the block more than once, and not every one of them qualifies for sainthood. They can influence specifications with astute usage of wording that promotes their products. Remember, their job is to sell, and most offer proprietary verbiage, albeit in disguise. Get over it. As a former dealer, I did it in the past, dealers do it today, and dealers will likely do it in the future. Most will not comment on the practice. The trend persists. Read vendor-prepared specifications very carefully. After an AHJ publishes a spec, it becomes a legal document with all parties playing in a highly regulated legal environment with real rules and real consequences.

Vendors can purposefully, as well as unintentionall

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) and Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) worked together to introduce bipartisan legislation (H.R. 3685/S. 1798) to exempt fire departments from a requirement to offer health insurance to their volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel. 

The Protect Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act will amend the definition of an employee€ under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to create a clear exemption for nominally compensated volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel.

The PPACA (P.L. 111-148) was passed in 2010 and contained many reforms to the American healthcare system. One of these reforms requires certain large employers to offer health insurance to their full-time employees. In September 2013, the IAFC sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to express concern that the IRS classification of volunteer firefighters as employees could potentially require certain fire departments to offer their volunteers health insurance under the PPACA...

The other day at an incident, I watch a veteran member of our department back up a vehicle without a backer even though there was a person in the passenger seat (two other members stood next to me when it happened). I walked over to the vehicle and had the driver stop and the passenger got out and finished backing the vehicle.  I asked the passenger, a member with less than 5 years on, why he didn’t get out and serve as a backer?  He looked at me and said “I wasn’t asked to”.  My next question was, “Did you ask the diver if a backer was needed?” The answer was “no”. I asked why and the passenger could not give me an answer.   After discussing with the two about the necessity of a backer, along with quoting the policy, I was approached by one of the people who, was standing next to me when this whole situation started to unfold.  That person very proudly said to me “I watch him do that all the time”.  I looked at that person and asked, wait for it, “Why haven’t you said anything?” I did not get a response and the person just shrugged and walked away.