By Bill Adams

Despite the good intentions of fire apparatus purchasing committees (APCs), they can inadvertently place themselves in awkward and uncomfortable situations by promulgating ineffectual purchasing specifications.

In particular, APCs should avoid writing specifications (specs) that may generate questions the committee can't answer. The intent of this article is to help keep spec writers from unintentionally placing themselves in such a position. It is directed at fire departments that follow formal bidding procedures, whether by choice or by edict, with the presumption of receiving competitive proposals. It is immaterial whether the specification format is generic, performance, or proprietary. It matters not if it is a career or volunteer entity. Nor does it matter if the APC, a consultant, or a vendor writes the document. Likewise, it is irrelevant if the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) is a city council, town board, board of fire commissioners, or governing body of a volunteer fire company.

Readers must understand the basic premise of competitive bidding. Through the APC, the AHJ publishes, in quantifiable and comparable terms, a technical purchasing specification describing what it wants to purchase. Writing quantifiable and comparable verbiage is very important. It is the key to a successful bidding process. Bidders submit proposals based solely on the written verbiage in a specification. The APC and AHJ compare and evaluate what bidders propose to what was specified and then make a purchasing decision. It sounds simple enough. However, specification wording that is subject to multiple interpretations or has no definitive meaning can render the process difficult at the least and impossible at the most.

Leave No Doubt

A quantifiable item in a specification is one that is clearly defined. It has specific criteria that can be evaluated such as dimensions, sizes, capacities, and even manufacturer and model numbers of component parts and pieces. There should be no doubt as to what the verbiage means and what the fire department expects. Spec writers must establish a definitive baseline or benchmark to compare proposals.

The purchaser can set that benchmark as high or as low as it deems necessary by words alone. And, it can be done without necessarily writing a proprietary specification around a particular manufacturer. To illustrate, a specification may read, "There shall be one large compartment above each rear wheel." A "large" compartment cannot be measured, evaluated, or compared. It is a useless description because it is not quantifiable. It can have different meanings to different people. Any size compartment proposed will legally meet the specification. If the purchaser does not care how big the compartment is, the "large" description is adequate although not required. A similar spec may read, "There shall be one compartment with approximately 13 cubic feet above each rear wheel." The word approximately is another immeasurable description that cannot be evaluated. It's as useless as large-save the ink. Again, if any size compartment is acceptable, the word approximate will suffice but again is not required or necessary.

A measurable spec may read, "There shall be one compartment with no less than 13 cubic feet above each rear wheel." This establishes a benchmark that purchasers can use to evaluate and compare proposals. A bidder proposing a compartment with less than 13 cubic feet does not meet the specification; one proposing 13 cubic feet or more does.

A more precise specification is, "There shall be one compartment with 13 cubic feet above each rear wheel." Bids proposing more or less than 13 cubic feet will not meet the technical specification as written. Only those proposing exactly 13 cubic feet will. Hence, literal descriptions are imperative. Abstract desc

Chris Mc Loone

A fan of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Facebook page recently commented on a picture shared there. There were two pieces of apparatus in the image-a 2005 engine and a 1984 tanker (tender), both in service with the same department.

He commented that there are many departments in the United States that are operating with dated equipment and that many departments talk about how hard they have it when they actually have a new truck parked in the station full of equipment that the crew needs to do its job. He said, "Put yourself in a real station that struggles but works with what it has and strives to be the best it can be with what it has." Pretty strong words there. He later sent a picture that we featured containing three of his department's apparatus. The newest apparatus in the picture is a 1979 Ford pumper. All three apparatus are from the 1970s.

Recent years have seen the fire service endure some of the toughest times it has experienced. Terms like "multipurpose apparatus" are the result of these times. The economy tanked, municipalities scaled back their budgets, and consequently the number of new apparatus purchased went down. Departments merged two trucks into one-not an entirely new concept, but for many it became a new necessity. Staffing levels dropped. But for many, this was nothing new.

We're lucky enough to have Carl Haddon, our "To the Rescue" columnist, who sheds much-needed light on the issues that impact rural fire departments in his monthly "Rurally Speaking" Web article. The fact is that for many of us, the current "do more with less" mantra is relatively new. Fire departments have always struggled to secure the same funding as our police brethren, but for many of us with 20 or fewer years of service, adjusting to the current atmosphere has been a challenge. This is not so, however, for departments like Haddon's. They have endured much worse for much longer. He says, "We laugh in frustration when we hear phrases such as 'additional resources' because we know that additional resources are at least a couple of hours away-if they are available at all. I don't know about you, but throughout my tenure with a rural department, I have often felt as though we are an island that the rest of the world doesn't really understand." The realities that many municipalities have faced since 2008 are nothing compared to what rural fire departments have faced for far longer.

And now, the fire service trade show season is ramping up. As it does, there is always a buzz revolving around upcoming product introductions, whether they be apparatus- or equipment-related. I'll be at some of the national shows and some of the regional shows. I'll be there for both work and my fire company. I'll be keeping tabs on what's new on the apparatus and equipment fronts as our apparatus purchasing committee begins creating specifications for a new rescue truck. However, there are many who will not be able to get to any show, not even to kick tires. For these departments, the realities are that no matter what the innovation is, how great it is, or how it will increase efficiencies on the fireground, it is unattainable in most cases.

And, the worst part is that there isn't an easy answer. Economies of scale are what they are. Although the audience member seemed frustrated at the realities before him, there was also an undercurrent of pride. "Put yourself in a real station that struggles but works with what it has and strives to be the best it can be with what it has," he said. That pride is what I think pervades all aspects of the fire service.

There isn't a firefighter or fire officer around who does not take pride in his department or company. If you don't, then you need to move on. Every one of us aspires to do our best with what we have. It is true that most of us are asked to do

By Raul A. Angulo

Ever hear, "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? What does this have to do with firefighting? Well, what do we fight? Fi re. What are our weapons? Fire hose. We can choose 1¾- or 2½-inch hoselines. Some fire departments use two-inch hose, and that's a nice manageable in-between. But the weapon of choice is usually the 1¾-inch handline, primarily because it's easiest to handle. Let's face it-pulling a 2½-inch is labor-intensive. When I was in drill school in 1980, we hated the 2½-inch line evolutions. Back then we used 100-foot sections of double-jacketed cotton hose. When it was soaked, it was heavy! Not to mention that the 2½-inch nozzle was an all-chromed Wooster nozzle. Shoulder loading a wet section of 2½-inch line off the ground was brutal, which translates into heavy! And, that was uncharged. Today we use 100-foot sections of 100 percent polyester-woven synthetic hose with lightweight nozzles. Uncharged, the hose is considerably lighter, but charged it's still heavy and hard to advance.

Shown here is Clint Bowring's original sketch of the tool that would eventually bear his name. The large hose cradle (hook) only accommodated 2½-inch hose. Features included a door wedge, sprinkler wedge, figure eight, gas shutoff, spanner wrench, carabiner hole, and ring (handle). [Photos by Clint Bowring.]

Changing Fire Loads

Fire departments were already figuring out what National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tests later confirmed: that synthetic modern fuel loads vs. the legacy fuel loads in residential homes were producing faster growing and bigger fires. Flashover times in room fires with legacy fuels are approximately 29 minutes after ignition. Modern fuels are producing room fire flashovers in approximately four minutes. We needed more water and additional handlines to extinguish routine house fires. The transition from 1½- to 1¾-inch fire hose as the new standard attack hose also ushered in new 1½-inch nozzles capable of flowing 200 to 225 gallons per minute (gpm)-a substantial increase from the standard 100-gpm nozzles. More gpm using a 1¾-inch hose meant you could put out more fire than the 1½-inch line could, yet the 1¾-inch line handled much like a 1½-inch hoseline. One firefighter could handle it. That industry adjustment put us ahead of the curve and gave us the advantage again.

This is the first Bowring prototype. Holes and slots were made to reduce the weight of the tool. The large hose cradle handled the 2½-inch hose. The small cradle was simply a spanner wrench.

The next fire problem that started creeping in all over the country was big box superstores. Simply put, our society created bigger spaces to pack modern fuel fire loads. The modern fuel fire loads were also increasing in high-rise buildings. Computer and telecommunication terminals with all the cable and support accessories are really plastic storage facilities disguised as business offices.

Our response to commercial fires was a bit miscalculated. The 1¾-inch interior attack line was working so well, we continued to fight commercial fires the same way we were fighting residential fires. You can put out a lot of fire with 200 gpm but not as much as with 300 gpm. The numbers are derived from fire flow requirement formulas. Th

By Robert Tutterow

In a previous column, I shared a quote from Glen Usdin, a former magazine publisher, that states, "The fire service is a low-tech market that has zero potential for growth, and the amount of new products and services being introduced each year is very small. We keep our expensive stuff for a long time and don't really embrace much new technology." I found this comment to be humbling as it was something I have never considered or heard mentioned.

The quote continued to weigh on my mind, and I started reflecting on fire service product innovations. When I step back to my first experiences in the fire service as a kid in the late 1950s, I can easily see changes everywhere. For example, when my dad became a charter member of a local rural volunteer fire department, there were no pagers and no 911 system. To report a fire, you had to call the local funeral home. It also ran the ambulance service and was available all day. The funeral home would call Mrs. Nina Powell, who lived across the road from the fire station. Fortunately, she was almost always at home and hopefully not on the phone. Yes, there was a backup contact. Mrs. Powell would go to the fire station and activate the alarm mounted on the roof. She would remain outside the station and tell the responding firefighters the location of the fire. This kept firefighters from having to get out of their vehicles. After a few minutes, she would write the information on the chalkboard for any late-arriving firefighters and return home.

The department's engine was a 1958 Howe pumper on a six-cylinder Chevrolet chassis with a four-speed manual transmission and two-speed rear end. The tanker (water tender) was a tractor-drawn military surplus vehicle. The tractor was a 1939 Federal with "armstrong" power steering, and the tanker trailer had a 2,000-gallon capacity. The tractor was as long as the trailer, and this quickly separated the skilled drivers from the not-so-skilled when it came to backing. There were no two-way radios and no incident command system. Yet, all of this was still a huge improvement over the horse-drawn, hand-pumped, and steam-driven engines of yesteryear. Clearly, the fire service has come a long way.

Emphasis on Safety

However, it's only been in the past 25 to 30 years that there has been an emphasis on fire apparatus and equipment as it relates to firefighter safety. Almost all the innovations have come from other industries like the military and, to some degree, the space program. Many of the changes have been driven by laws, standards, and litigation-or the fear of litigation. The fire service simply has little horsepower when it comes to driving technological advances. Historically, most of what we do is low-tech, though this is beginning to change.

For apparatus, the biggest change has been in cab design-going from open cabs to fully enclosed cabs. This became a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirement in 1991. The change was prompted by a lawsuit against an apparatus manufacturer, the Peter Pirsch Company. A Brookline, Massachusetts, firefighter-Joseph Tynan-died from head injuries sustained when he fell from the apparatus during a response. A key point to the prosecution's case was the grab bar that wrapped around the back of the canopy cab. The defense was not able to determine the purpose of the grab bar other than a place to hold onto while standing during a response. The Pirsch Company was found liable for the accident and was successfully sued for $5 million. Soon thereafter, it went out of business.

Visible warning devices for apparatus have also improved with the emergence of LED lights. Electronics are now the norm in engines and transmissions. Yet, these improvements come from other industries. There have been improvements to the seating and restraint systems in fire apparatus as well as improvements in step and grab