Editor’s Note: One of the most prevailing trends in fire apparatus design in the past decade has been departments spec’ing rescue-pumpers. Along with rescue-pumpers, quints have become common. There are numerous reasons for departments taking two rigs and combining them into one and myriad opinions. We asked Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley to give their perspectives on multipurpose apparatus.

Combining two single-function fire apparatus into a single multipurpose rig is not a new concept. The acceptance of motorization in the fire service brought about the creation of the triple combination pumper, combining the steam engine, hose wagon, and chemical wagon into one rig. Unlike today, the staff reduction and elimination of the expense of maintaining horses were results of the concept and not a reason for it. Following the triples were quads, quints, pumper-tankers, rescue-engines, and a multitude of other combinations with various monikers. The benefits of multipurpose apparatus are touted by manufacturers, purchasers, industry experts, and pundits alike. Many are outspoken and make compelling arguments. Most are valid.

Actual and perceived benefits are the driving forces behind multipurpose apparatus acceptance in the fire service. The benefits cannot be viewed objectively from a single perspective. There are too many players and too many variations. Concurrently, the players have equally varied opinions for why they dislike the concept. Career and volunteer firefighters, manufacturers and their dealers, as well as politicians have numerous, yet varied, reasons for promoting or accepting the concept. Seldom admitted and never discussed in the fire service is the possibility that personal agendas can obscure fact and reality.

In my opinion, there are hidden dynamics that some purchasers have failed to address when evaluating the multipurpose concept. Whether it is intentional or an oversight is immaterial. They are there. It must be acknowledged that the valid reasons for or against can vary by the size, location, and makeup of a fire department. What works well for a department in a congested northeastern metropolitan area may not be appropriate for a small department in the sparsely populated southwestern plains states. The pumper-rescue (or rescue-pumper) concept has become very popular in the past decade or two. A good majority of today’s pumper designs are of that style. It is difficult to do an objective analysis of the pumper-rescue concept because of the multiple variations of the unit and scenarios it may be placed in. Is the pumper-rescue always run as a first-out piece or as a support vehicle? Is the rescue portion of the vehicle designed exclusively for auto-extrication responses? Or, is it expected to perform as a “service company,” supplying lighting, salvage, and self-contained breathing apparatus support? A department may be hard pressed to find a vehicle to adequately perform all those tasks as well as serve as a basic and effective engine company on the fireground. It may be impossible if the functions are expected to be accomplished at the same time.

My intent is not to demean any multipurpose apparatus. They are tools no different than axes, nozzles, or cut-off saws. If used properly as designed and intended, they are an asset to the fire service. Because of the popularity of the rescue-pumper, I will be a “devil’s advocate” with that particular design - not to take an opposing point of view for the sake of debate but to make purchasers aware of possible limitations. Sometimes, asking a question gives a person cause to think and analyze. My disclaimer: I have both sold and purchased fire apparatus, and my opinions are traditional and biased.

• Regardless of size, type, color, or manufact

Editor’s Note: One of the most prevailing trends in fire apparatus design in the past decade has been departments spec’ing rescue-pumpers. Along with rescue-pumpers, quints have become common. There are numerous reasons for departments taking two rigs and combining them into one and myriad opinions. We asked Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley to give their perspectives on multipurpose apparatus.

Combining two single-function fire apparatus into a single multipurpose rig is not a new concept. The acceptance of motorization in the fire service brought about the creation of the triple combination pumper, combining the steam engine, hose wagon, and chemical wagon into one rig. Unlike today, the staff reduction and elimination of the expense of maintaining horses were results of the concept and not a reason for it. Following the triples were quads, quints, pumper-tankers, rescue-engines, and a multitude of other combinations with various monikers. The benefits of multipurpose apparatus are touted by manufacturers, purchasers, industry experts, and pundits alike. Many are outspoken and make compelling arguments. Most are valid.

Actual and perceived benefits are the driving forces behind multipurpose apparatus acceptance in the fire service. The benefits cannot be viewed objectively from a single perspective. There are too many players and too many variations. Concurrently, the players have equally varied opinions for why they dislike the concept. Career and volunteer firefighters, manufacturers and their dealers, as well as politicians have numerous, yet varied, reasons for promoting or accepting the concept. Seldom admitted and never discussed in the fire service is the possibility that personal agendas can obscure fact and reality.

In my opinion, there are hidden dynamics that some purchasers have failed to address when evaluating the multipurpose concept. Whether it is intentional or an oversight is immaterial. They are there. It must be acknowledged that the valid reasons for or against can vary by the size, location, and makeup of a fire department. What works well for a department in a congested northeastern metropolitan area may not be appropriate for a small department in the sparsely populated southwestern plains states. The pumper-rescue (or rescue-pumper) concept has become very popular in the past decade or two. A good majority of today’s pumper designs are of that style. It is difficult to do an objective analysis of the pumper-rescue concept because of the multiple variations of the unit and scenarios it may be placed in. Is the pumper-rescue always run as a first-out piece or as a support vehicle? Is the rescue portion of the vehicle designed exclusively for auto-extrication responses? Or, is it expected to perform as a “service company,” supplying lighting, salvage, and self-contained breathing apparatus support? A department may be hard pressed to find a vehicle to adequately perform all those tasks as well as serve as a basic and effective engine company on the fireground. It may be impossible if the functions are expected to be accomplished at the same time.

My intent is not to demean any multipurpose apparatus. They are tools no different than axes, nozzles, or cut-off saws. If used properly as designed and intended, they are an asset to the fire service. Because of the popularity of the rescue-pumper, I will be a “devil’s advocate” with that particular design - not to take an opposing point of view for the sake of debate but to make purchasers aware of possible limitations. Sometimes, asking a question gives a person cause to think and analyze. My disclaimer: I have both

By Raul A. Angulo

The August 21, 2004, headline of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette read, “Girl dies after being struck by hose from fire truck. Authorities baffled by bizarre accident.”

It was a Thursday summer afternoon on August 19, 2004, when the engine of the Coraopolis (PA) Volunteer Fire Department was pulling the hill on Chess St. The members were responding to a reported basement fire on the 400 block of Mount Vernon Ave. As they were approaching the intersection, about 30 feet of 1¾-inch hose came out of the Mattydale slot. The nozzle caught the edge of a car tire and deployed the rest of the load, taking out a birdbath and two hibiscus plants before the tension pulled the nozzle loose, causing it to swing around like a giant whip. The six-pound nozzle struck two 10-year-old girls on the right side of their heads. One was killed as a result of a brain stem injury and the other was seriously injured and disfigured. The noise of the diesel engine climbing the hill, the siren, and the fact that the crew members had already donned their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) face pieces prevented them from hearing or noticing what had happened. Two years later, a jury awarded the families $5 million.

It happened again on October 18, 2014. A 58-year-old male was riding his bicycle when a Toledo, Ohio, fire apparatus on an emergency response lost 150 feet of 1¾-inch hose, and the nozzle struck the cyclist, killing him. The force behind the hose was so strong, it yanked the rear wheel off the bicycle.

1 Numerous Hose Alert clamps can accommodate every hose load and every hosebed on the fire apparatus. Each clamp is tethered to the apparatus with a thin steel cable. Each clamp has a glow-in-the dark strip for easy visibility at night. (Photos by author unless otherwise noted.)

In 2002, Tualatin Valley (OR) Fire and Rescue accidentally dropped hose off one of its apparatus, which was thought to be the cause of a motor vehicle accident that killed a 41-year-old man from St. Helens. On October 22, 2013, a Troy, Michigan, fire truck accidentally dumped a hose load on the freeway that damaged 12 vehicles that ran over the deployed hose. On December 24, 2013, a fire truck accidentally deployed hose, damaging several vehicles in the northbound lanes of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. In February 2014, a Vancouver (WA) fire apparatus dumped 800 feet of large-diameter hose (LDH) on the Glen Jackson Bridge, causing a two-car accident.

It is hard to keep up with all the national emergency and nonemergency fire service news, and I must tell you, these stories got past me. I was shocked to hear about them - not so much about the accidental hose deployments; I’m sure most firefighters are aware that this happens. It’s not as rare as you think - we’re bound to experience it or hear about it within our department once or twice throughout our careers. It’s usually a professional embarrassment for the driver and the crew, so unless there’s an incident, everyone inside the “cone of silence” is sworn to secrecy. No crew wants to be the butt of the joke or departmentwide ribbing for laying out the entire LDH inventory on the highway. However, with cell phones everywhere, it probably is impossible to cover this event up without some civilian recording it and posting it on social media. What shocked me were the civilian

By Raul A. Angulo

The August 21, 2004, headline of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette read, “Girl dies after being struck by hose from fire truck. Authorities baffled by bizarre accident.”

It was a Thursday summer afternoon on August 19, 2004, when the engine of the Coraopolis (PA) Volunteer Fire Department was pulling the hill on Chess St. The members were responding to a reported basement fire on the 400 block of Mount Vernon Ave. As they were approaching the intersection, about 30 feet of 1¾-inch hose came out of the Mattydale slot. The nozzle caught the edge of a car tire and deployed the rest of the load, taking out a birdbath and two hibiscus plants before the tension pulled the nozzle loose, causing it to swing around like a giant whip. The six-pound nozzle struck two 10-year-old girls on the right side of their heads. One was killed as a result of a brain stem injury and the other was seriously injured and disfigured. The noise of the diesel engine climbing the hill, the siren, and the fact that the crew members had already donned their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) face pieces prevented them from hearing or noticing what had happened. Two years later, a jury awarded the families $5 million.

It happened again on October 18, 2014. A 58-year-old male was riding his bicycle when a Toledo, Ohio, fire apparatus on an emergency response lost 150 feet of 1¾-inch hose, and the nozzle struck the cyclist, killing him. The force behind the hose was so strong, it yanked the rear wheel off the bicycle.

1 Numerous Hose Alert clamps can accommodate every hose load and every hosebed on the fire apparatus. Each clamp is tethered to the apparatus with a thin steel cable. Each clamp has a glow-in-the dark strip for easy visibility at night. (Photos by author unless otherwise noted.)

In 2002, Tualatin Valley (OR) Fire and Rescue accidentally dropped hose off one of its apparatus, which was thought to be the cause of a motor vehicle accident that killed a 41-year-old man from St. Helens. On October 22, 2013, a Troy, Michigan, fire truck accidentally dumped a hose load on the freeway that damaged 12 vehicles that ran over the deployed hose. On December 24, 2013, a fire truck accidentally deployed hose, damaging several vehicles in the northbound lanes of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. In February 2014, a Vancouver (WA) fire apparatus dumped 800 feet of large-diameter hose (LDH) on the Glen Jackson Bridge, causing a two-car accident.

It is hard to keep up with all the national emergency and nonemergency fire service news, and I must tell you, these stories got past me. I was shocked to hear about them - not so much about the accidental hose deployments; I’m sure most firefighters are aware that this happens. It’s not as rare as you think - we’re bound to experience it or hear about it within our department once or twice throughout our careers. It’s usually a professional embarrassment for the driver and the crew, so unless there’s an incident, everyone inside the “cone of silence” is sworn to secrecy. No crew wants to be the butt of the joke or departmentwide ribbing for laying out the entire LDH inventory on the highway. However, with cell phones everywhere, it probably is impossible to cover this event up without some civilian recording it and posting it on social media. What shocked me were the civilian