By Chris Daly

A recent incident in my county has demonstrated the importance of installing vehicle data recorders in emergency vehicles. A local resident made the following post on his Facebook page in reference to fire apparatus that were responding to a working house fire:

“Not sure what the emergency in XXXXX is but XXXX Fire Company does not need to come down XXXXX Hill in equipment at Mach 3. Someone is going to get hurt! Please share!”

As social media goes, there was an immediate buzz from both sides of the issue. No matter which side you are on, there are several important lessons to be learned from this incident.

Truth?
First, the truth doesn’t matter. Regardless of the outcome of an internal investigation, the die has been cast. This resident has made a post that suggests fire apparatus were not operated safely while traveling through his neighborhood. Even if an internal investigation reveals that this statement was untrue, it will be very difficult to try and put the genie back in the bottle. The people who read the statement are not likely to read follow-up posts that prove or disprove the allegations. They will turn off their electronic device for the day, believing that firefighters drive irresponsibly. As a police officer, I will tell you: “Welcome to our world.”

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If this complaint turns out to be justified, the incident demonstrates how a single action can taint the reputation of an entire profession through the use of social media. If the emergency vehicle driver had driven in a responsible manner, the complainant would not have had a reason to post his opinion on social media. However, because there was some question in the complainant’s mind regarding the operation of the fire apparatus, he felt obligated to share his opinion with the world. Holding drivers responsible for speeding, failing to come to complete stops, and reckless or unsafe driving will help ensure a culture of safe drivers that will help prevent a similar public relations incident in the future.

Vehicle Data Recorders
This incident also highlights the importance of using vehicle data recorders in fire apparatus. The newest version of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, requires that all new apparatus be equipped with a vehicle data recorder, commonly referred to as a “black box.” NFPA 1901, Section 4.11 requires that these devices record the following information at least once every second and store the information in a 48-hour loop:

While these devices have been met with some resistance because of issues related to “big brother watching,” I am a firm believer in their use. For those who worry about big brother watching, I ask, “What are you afraid of?” If your department is operating emergency apparatus in a safe and professional manner, there will be no need to worry about the data being recorded by the black box. Instead this data can be used to refute vague allegations such as those made in this example. Was the fire apparatus really driving at “Mach 3?” Or, did the complainant have a false sense of speed and urgency because of his point of observation and the sound of the sirens? In this case, black box data could be used to prove one way or the other if th

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

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

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