Click here to View Image Gallery

Alan M. Petrillo

"All our vehicles are on a replacement cycle of 20 years of front-line service and five years in reserve before they are replaced," says Mike Owenby, Warrenton's chief. "We have about 10 miles of Interstate 70 that run through our fire district, which means lots of motor vehicle accidents and tractor trailer accidents. That's why all three of our engines are set up as rescue-pumpers."

Pump Panel Location

Warrenton's truck committee produced a list of the things it liked about a 2009 rescue-pumper it had purchased from Rosenbauer and then spent a lot of time looking at other vehicles in neighboring departments. "The committee made a lot of changes to what we wanted in our new rescue-pumper," Owenby points out. "They wanted a rear-mount pump and a pump panel at the rear of the officer's side to protect the operator when working on the interstate. We also wanted our extrication tools mounted in the front bumper and our crosslays at the rear of the vehicle."

Brian Franz, executive vice president of Sentinel Emergency Solutions, who sold the rescue-pumper to Warrenton, says he delivered a rear-mount rescue-pumper to Lincoln County, Missouri, in 2012 and told the Warrenton truck committee it should take a look at it, which they did. "Once they saw that pumper, they were sold on the rear-mount concept," he says. "Their new vehicle has a shorter wheelbase than their older side-mount pumper, and it has at least 100 cubic feet more storage space, with full height compartments on both sides."

Todd McBride, apparatus specialist at Rosenbauer, says one of the main advantages of a rear-mount pump with a pump panel at the left or right rear is the field of view that it offers the operator. "With a setup like that, the operator has a 270-degree field of view of a scene instead of 180 degrees like you would find on a side-mount pumper," he points out.

McBride adds that the Warrenton rescue-pumper carries a little bit more water than most rescue-pumpers. "Warrenton chose to have a 1,000-gallon water tank plus two foam tanks of 40 gallons each-one for Class A foam and the other for Class B," he says.

Another interesting feature of the rig, McBride says, is its kneeling feature. "The rear axle has an air ride suspension where the operator can push a button on the pump panel and lower the rear of the vehicle about six inches so the rear step and hosebed are even more accessible," he notes.

Preconnects and Rescue Tools

Robert Tutterow

The topic has been an issue for the past eight years and was one of the hot topics this past July at a meeting of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Technical Committee on Fire Department Apparatus. A recently released National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study, "Safe Seating and Seat Belts in Fire Apparatus: Anthropometric Study," clearly indicated that the minimum seat width for 95 percent of firefighters to have adequate room to buckle a seat belt is 28 inches. The current minimum is 22 inches-a width that many custom cabs barely meet. Anthropometry refers to a study of body measurements. This particular study involved measuring almost 1,000 firefighters from across the country with and without turnout gear. The Technical Committee received a "public input" to increase the width to the 28-inch minimum standard. The input did not pass the vote of the committee. For reasons discussed in the prior two months, it had no support. The official committee action was to "hold for further study."

According to the NFPA standards development process, "hold for further study" means the proposal will automatically be brought up again for the next revision-in three to five years but most likely in five years. Unless the fire service begins to insist on wider seating configurations, the issue will likely be rejected again because of the same arguments presented this past year. The NFPA process will not allow an input or comment to be held for further study more than once.

Fresh Cab Design Approach

NFPA standards can be used to advance improved design and technological changes, especially for safety issues. Some NFPA technical committees are more proactive than others when setting standards to advance a problematic issue. The NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Department Apparatus has a very conservative approach to standards revision. It will typically only make changes that every apparatus manufacturer already does or can very easily accommodate.

The "hold for further study" was a way for the committee to "kick the can down the road." The chances of "further study" are slim and none, and the safe bet is on none. Firefighters aren't likely to shrink in the next five years. A more appropriate term would be "hold for further development," but that is not a choice in the NFPA standards development process.

It will be interesting to see if any, or how many, manufacturers aggressively and proactively address the issue. More importantly, though, will be whether or not firefighters and fire departments start insisting on adequate seating width. As I said in previous columns, there are very few custom cabs that currently meet the proposed 28-inch minimum width. Improvement will likely require a fresh approach to cab design. Maybe the European designs can be modified to suit the North American fire service. At one time, John Dennis Coachbuilders, in the United Kingdom, made apparatus without frame rails by using truss construction. This allowed the engine to be lowered by several inches. There have also been apparatus designed around a rear-engine-mount bus chassis. Maybe a fresh approach to engine cooling and serviceability for midengine mounts needs consideration. If the fire service fails to press the issue, the manufacturers will assume all is well. This will result in the same discussion for the next NFPA revision cycle and will again result in no progress. Unfortunately, the substantia

Richard Marinucci

These same principles can be used to prevent firefighter injuries. For this strategy to be most effective, individuals and organizations must develop methods to stay current in all areas and implement the most practical solutions applicable to their situations. Policy makers must consider the services organizations provide and firefighters' expectations in the decision-making process.

Engineering

Engineering safety is a key component within an overall strategy. Although this will not fix all problems or eliminate all risks, it does increase the margin of safety in cases where human error may come into play. If you study the circumstances that cause injuries and fatalities, you can get a better picture of where fire departments need to place the most effort. Firefighters get injured on the fireground, on roadways, and while traveling to the emergencies. I realize that I have not included cardiac issues, but that is a discussion for another time. We are discussing protecting firefighters while doing their work.

It is absolutely critical to get crews to the emergency. There are obviously many safety components engineered into apparatus. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and federal vehicle standards do a good job of establishing the necessary safety components for apparatus, but it is good to remember that these are minimum standards that departments should view as baselines. Organizations should evaluate their own risks and determine if they need to take additional steps. Certainly manufacturers would be happy to add additional safety features if they make sense for your situation and are practical for an apparatus's construction.

Individually and collectively, the fire service needs to continue to ask for more safety features in apparatus that protect firefighters while driving and operating vehicles and also when working on the roadways. There has been much progress with passenger restraints and vehicle markings. There has not been as much advancement in air bags. Know what your options are and how you can add measures that will engineer even more protection should an unplanned event occur.

Protecting firefighters also includes engineering safety into their personal protective equipment (PPE). The NFPA offers great standards that are updated regularly to adapt and adjust to changes in the industry. To get the most benefit from engineered protection, you need to evaluate all elements of the job and the best way to offer protection. It is not just a case of protecting for fire situations. EMS and special rescue responses require different PPE. There are also considerations for reflective vests while working on the roadway. These standards continue to evolve. You have to stay current on the latest to make sure you are keeping PPE up to date.

There are other elements of engineering protection for firefighters. They can include self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), thermal imaging cameras, personal escape systems, portable radios, and virtually any ancillary equipment designed to make the job safer and easier. For example, lighter equipment that is equally as effective as something heavier provides less strain on an individual and, therefore, is less likely to cause injury. In fact, many improvements to firefighting equipment have been the result of finding lighter materials. This is applicable to PPE, SCBA, and various tools.

Of course, being lightweight is one component of engineering. Ease of operation and redundancy of certain features may also be engi

Chris Taylor

The situation has hardly improved, with many recent stories across the news involving attacks on fire crews. In early September 2014, Detroit, Michigan, firefighters were assaulted with rocks and bottles as they attempted to extinguish a suspicious fire at a vacant house. Just weeks earlier in July, a crew in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was attacked with fireworks by a group of young men. Also in July, Boston, Massachusetts, firefighters and paramedics were attacked by a group of three men.

Although most people view firefighters as heroes, a minority sees no problem attacking them. This raises a question: Should fire crews wear body armor when attending calls? If so, is the expense of adding this extra gear to fire department budgets justifiable? Many think so. In the past year, fire crews in New York, Florida, and South Carolina have started to wear protective clothing to defend against attacks, with the latter choosing custom-fitted vests.

The situations in which assaults take place vary. Sometimes, crews attend emergency calls in rundown areas and encounter violent individuals. At other times, they may attempt to help a person of unsound mind only to be attacked without reason or warning. Or, most dangerously, they may be called to a hostile police scenario with a high risk of gunfire and knives. When we consider the dangers of a firefighter's work, we generally assume fire, smoke inhalation, collapsing buildings, and explosions are the major risks. Yet, this wide-ranging abuse is sadly just as significant.

How Would Body Armor Protect Firefighters?

The first concern of wearing body armor is the extra weight and bulk it will add to a firefighter's clothing. To perform at the best of their abilities, firefighters need the flexibility and freedom to run, avoid falling debris, jump, climb structures, and carry people to safety. When adding body armor to the gear they already carry-helmets, turnout pants and jackets, and breathing apparatus-this may take some getting used to. However, the risk of gunshots or stab wounds poses a greater danger, and not all body armors are the heavy-duty type we see police officers and military personnel wear. There are other options.

Bulletproof vests, stabproof vests, and spiked-weapon vests offer varying levels of protection against their respective dangers. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) categorizes these levels following stringent tests. Although fire crews can never know exactly what type of reception they're likely to get at a scene, they should make a decision on whether they expect a specific attack or not and wear the appropriate armor. For example, if they're called to assist police at a burning building that is also the scene of an armed siege, bulletproof armor will prove essential. Likewise, if called to a fire in an area with high levels of stabbings or youth crime, stab vests may be more appropriate.

Firefighters should always retain the right to use their judgment regarding armor use: if they need to cut someone out of a wrecked car or help bring somebody down from a rooftop, their armor is likely unnecessary, and they should be free to remove it as they see fit.

Choosing the Right Body Armor

Once firefighters decide to wear protective clothing, they must choose the right vest for the expected risk. For example, bulletproof armor will not defend completely against a blade, nor will a stab vest protect