Christian P. Koop

In November 2013, I wrote about emergency response vehicle (ERV) fleet defects I have encountered over the years that can repeat themselves even in different makes, models, and equipment vocations.

I began the article with an analogy about how history seems to repeat itself-not only in recorded history but also with trucks, automotive equipment in general, and ERVs in particular. I feel it can be beneficial to others involved in ERV maintenance and repair to communicate these past fleet-wide issues because they can repeat themselves. The driving force behind writing about these cases is sharing past experiences with the hope that it may help someone get a difficult issue resolved and get a unit back into service sooner rather than later. I have witnessed these issues recur time and time again. Being forewarned about these issues will effectively forearm you to help resolve a problem.

In this article, I cover two cases involving a new fleet that had steering system defects and directional control issues because of an improperly wired antilock braking system (ABS) and traction control system.

Steering Miter Boxes

One fleet defect I have seen repeatedly is the steering system miter box and the security and design of how it is mounted to the chassis or cab. The steering miter box is necessary when the location of the steering column in the cab is forward of where the steering gear box is located or mounted on the chassis. Most miter boxes I have seen on fire apparatus are 1:1 ratio, 90-degree types and are used to redirect the steering shaft output from the steering column back toward the power steering gear that is mounted on the chassis, generally somewhere below the driver's seating position.

I distinctly remember when a critical problem was detected in a group of aerial fire apparatus during a predelivery inspection of a group of new aerial apparatus at the manufacturer's facility. While I was inspecting the steering system, I noticed the miter box had been mounted on an L-type bracket constructed out of what appeared to be a ⅜-inch aluminum plate that was bent at 90 degrees. What really caught my eye was that it had no gussets or any form of reinforcement. Becoming suspicious of its mounting integrity, I had one of the inspection team members rock the steering wheel back and forth with the engine off while I checked the miter box for movement. Just as I feared, the bracket flexed excessively. We reported the problem to engineering, and the miter box mounting bracket was redesigned with the appropriate welded gussets to ensure it would support the miter without any undue flexing or movement.

This was done prior to accepting and placing the units into service. I think most reading this can imagine what could have happened had those units left the factory with defective miter box mounting brackets. If a miter box bracket had broken during operation, the steering could have locked, causing loss of directional control for the operator. Loss of steering is a scary thought, and just think of the possible legalities involved if someone was seriously injured or killed had there been an accident. A good attorney would have a field day with a failure of this type involving such a safety-sensitive component that should be properly engineered and tested prior to being placed into production.

I must also mention this was not an anomaly because I have seen issues with how this component is mounted not just on fire apparatus but also on other vehicles. A few years after the previous case, I was invited to inspect a new type of refuse truck cab and chassis where I discovered a very similar issue where the miter box flexed excessively because the mounting location was not structurally sound for the torque loads placed on it during steering.

This is an item technicians must check thoroughly when examining the steering system during pre

By Bill Adams

Most fire apparatus manufacturers have Web sites enabling prospective purchasers to locate their closest authorized dealer.

In some instances, the manufacturer itself is listed as the primary sales contact. Little known and seldom advertised is the fact the majority of apparatus manufacturers sell rigs "factory direct" albeit for varied, valid, and understandable reasons. When a fire department inquires about whether it can purchase factory direct or demands to, a quandary can develop, putting apparatus manufacturers in an uncomfortable position and dealers in a precarious one. The topic can be as volatile as boiling gasoline in an open container on a campfire. The intent of this article is to address the subject in a manner understandable to purchasers yet fair and equitable for dealers and manufacturers.

Purchasers' perceptions of apparatus manufacturers and their distribution networks are based on a "right now" assessment and may not be entirely objective. Almost all manufacturers, including the larger ones and those in business for generations, all started out small. Access their histories. Most founders were blacksmiths, fabricators, or operated repair shops. Usually the owner/sole-proprietor started out fixing someone's broken fire truck, then built one for the local fire department, then one for a neighboring department. Have you ever heard of Don Smeal, Sam Saulsbury, Chris Ferrara, Elmer Abrahamson, Carlton Maxim, Harold Boer, or John Kovatch Jr.? When these people started in business, they did not inherit large, well-established distribution networks (dealers and dealerships). They started out selling factory direct. As their businesses expanded into statewide, regional, national, and international markets, so did their marketing and sales strategies. Along the way they established personal relationships with some of their first customers and some of their original dealers. Those relationships can be as strong now as when forged.

Today, most large and midsize apparatus manufacturers sell via dealers. Smaller and regional manufacturers don't always do so. Caution-it could be by choice. It's not fair to compare the distribution networks and sales policies of manufacturers building 30 rigs per year with those building 300 rigs per year. Purchasers should be cognizant of the fact that many regional and smaller builders are very comfortable with their size, their annual sales, and their methods of marketing. The number of employees, size of their facilities, and how they sell are not necessarily reflective of the quality of their finished product.

The particulars of the business relationships between manufacturers and their dealers are personal, usually contractually binding, and bluntly none of a fire department's business. Purchasers shouldn't ask. Apparatus dealerships are unlike automobile dealerships where there may be multiple dealers in one city. Apparatus manufacturers have one dealership per territory. A dealership's customer base remains constant-only those fire departments within its territory.

Direct Sales

My interpretation of a direct sale, sometimes called a house account, is a sale that is not handled by a local dealer. It can be by the manufacturer's owner himself, through in-house sales staff, a regional sales manager, or a factory store. Several manufacturers own and operate regional service centers, which may employ local sales staffs.

The primary reason for selling direct is not having a local dealer in a territory. The military, cooperative purchasing consortiums, the federal government, and export sales are usually administered from single locations. It makes sense for a direct factory relationship to manage those types of accounts. Occasionally, there are very technical, highly complex vehicles requiring such an inordinate amount of factory involvement that it's logical for t

By Dhiren Chauhan

"I am responsible for everyone who goes into this burning building. I am responsible for making sure everyone who goes into this building comes out safely and returns home."

A variation of this dialog goes through an incident commander's (IC) thought process every time he is assigned to a working fire. He is the first responder's lifeline to the outside world. In the event that one of his personnel is in trouble, he is also the one responsible for making sure he provides information to the rapid intervention team (RIT) to get him out safely. It is a job that requires him to act swiftly and manage multiple tasks-all while being flooded with information from various sources.

Various Technologies

An IC leverages various technologies today to manage the incident-solutions ranging from two-way radio communications, delivery of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) telemetry, thermal imaging cameras, and body-worn video to relay information to ICs.

There is no lack of excellent technology today for ICs. The challenge is to get them all to work together as a solution, providing a situational-awareness-based approach to incident management.

It is tempting for departments to invest in a potentially life-saving piece of new equipment. But unless it is clear how the product fits into the entire ecosystem, the investment might not pay off. Worse, it may be counterproductive. Responders could be saddled with multiple devices, each of which delivers information in a different format. At some point, the disparate devices may become too burdensome or deliver too much inconsistent information that the emergency team ignores them altogether.

As we are seeing in the consumer electronics market, it is more important to have product convergence than it is to purchase individual products that may not work together. Keeping informed about how one vendor's product may or may not work with another vendor's product-all while understanding technological limitations before you invest in equipment-helps you make the right decision about the next investment for your firefighters' safety.

Think Integrated Solutions, Not Devices

Today, there are new approaches and solutions in the fire market that help the IC perform routine tasks. Thermal imaging cameras from MSA allow the IC to view first-person footage from the eyes of the first responder, Pak-Tracker technology from Scott Safety allows a RIT and IC to locate a down firefighter. Streamlined radio-based roll call technology from Motorola Solutions cuts personnel accountability report (PAR) cycle time by up to 85 percent. These are a few of the solutions available today.

You may be familiar with these technologies, but how well do you know their roles in a complex environment that includes seemingly disparate subsystems-SCBA, radios, dispatch solutions, fire-alerting solutions, and more-as well as a wide range of people in different roles, from dispatchers to firefighters to ICs?

In the end, you want all these pieces to work together so an IC can concentrate on first responder safety and preserving personal property. Using technology in conjunction with best practices your department already employs allows the IC to concentrate on tasks that require complete focus.

Embracing and understanding unfamiliar technological solutions can be overwhelming and sometimes intimidating. Thankfully, your equipment providers can provide technologically robust solutions that are intuitive, are easy to use, and do not create a burden in the moments that matter. You can't afford to replace a ladder company member with someone from IT when there is a firefighter who is not answering your request to check for PAR. Not only are vendors responsible for providing the right solution that works, they should also be responsible for working with each other to ensure all products i

By Chris Mc Loone

I recently sat in on a rather spirited but informal truck committee meeting at my fire company-informal because although the group of us will be on an upcoming truck committee, we weren't in any official decision making capacity at the time, and the committee in its entirety hasn't been named yet.

It was spirited because we had a number of personalities in the room who had very strong opinions about how our next apparatus should be equipped and how it should be designed. As I looked around the room during one rather loud yet not heated discussion, I began to wonder, Who will be the voice of reason moving forward during this process; who will be the most persuasive; and, frankly, how in the world are we going to get through this?

In some ways, this is uncharted waters for the truck committee. The last truck we built was an engine. We took delivery in 2010. Although it was not a simple process, to my recollection we did not have any of the impassioned debates we are starting to have already. Actually, the other members of the committee may disagree with that, because I really wanted a bell on the engine. And, I know some of us had some convincing to do to get a booster reel on the truck. But, all in all, it was a relatively smooth process. A rescue truck, however, is a whole different animal.

In this month's FAMA Forum, Bill Proft mentions that a rescue vehicle is an expensive toolbox. Not only that, but a rescue vehicle is probably one of the most heavily customized fire apparatus on the road. The amount of equipment and degree of customization leave a lot of room for debate.

For an engine, there is certain equipment we have to carry per NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. It creates a rather defined starting point. When we were specing our engine, it was relatively simple outside of deciding how many discharges to go with, figuring out the crew cab, and equipment location. NFPA 1901 has no classification for a rescue truck. It falls under the "special service apparatus" heading. The minimum requirements for special service apparatus do not include rescue equipment, which is where our debate begins. It's pretty hard to build a truck when there isn't a baseline from which to start.

You might think, "What's the problem? You have the equipment. Put it on the next truck." This is where some of the uncharted waters are for us. The entire fire service is being asked to do more with fewer personnel, and in some cases the volunteer fire service isn't being asked to do so but is being forced to because of declining numbers. We are looking at designing a truck around realities we haven't had to focus on as of yet. We have to more carefully consider daytime numbers vs. the numbers we get at night to build a truck with equipment that realistically can be deployed by one person. We need to take a closer look than ever at the walk-in and walk-through designs we've employed on past rescues and decide whether it's realistic to expect that we could have up to 13 personnel on the truck. We can pick up a lot of space by reducing the size of the walk-in area at the very least or eliminating it completely.

Data are going to come in handy for this one. It's not going to stop disagreements over seating, but it's going to be hard to argue with data that say we staff the truck with X amount of personnel beyond the driver and officer on average. We have the data-one of the benefits of the accreditation process we've been going through that I talked about last month.

We purchase our apparatus ourselves, so the truck committee will have to justify the purchase to the general body of the fire company, and the expenditure will come to a vote. Our next rescue truck undoubtedly is going to be a departure from rescue trucks of the past in many ways, and the committee will have to explain the rationale behind many of its decisions. The