LightRock takes a look at the latest report:

In Saturday’s Ocala Star-Banner, an article by Rick Cundiff  (HERE)  provides details of the fire apparatus manufacturer’s current financial health. Previous to parent company Federal Signal’s most recent SEC filings, E-One’s financials had not been reported on a “stand alone” basis, instead being buried within the results of Federal’s Fire Rescue Group, which also includes Bronto Skylift.

[photopress:E_ONElogo_thumb_1_2_3_4.jpg,full,centered]

In the most recent filing, Federal considers E-One to be a “discontinued operation” which means that E-One’s performance will no longer be included in reports of the parent company’s financial results. As a part of restating  their results for the last year — and showing E-One’s performance absent the “cover” provided by Bronto —  Federal Signal reported that E-One lost nearly $25 million on sales of less than $218 million.

Many fire apparatus industry observers were taken aback by both the size of the loss (especially on a percentage basis) and by how low the overall sales numbers of E-One have become. Federal Signal has had E-One on the block for sale for some time. However, despite talk about an imminent sale, nothing has materialized thus far.At this juncture, it is worth noting that in the past there been other distressed fire apparatus manufacturers – Grumman is one example – that simply closed their doors after a buyer couldn’t be found. With the kind of results that have now been publicly reported, it is worth considering that a similar fate could befall E-One.

Besides the bad news on the financial front, E-One has lost many of their top dealers to competitors. Being considered a “discontinued operation” by your current owners can’t be confidence inspiring for the remaining dealers or E-One’s employees. Any potential buyer would have to dig the company out of a pretty deep hole. Keep in mind that on $218 million in sales, to get from where they are now to let’s say 5% profitability, is an over $35 million swing. Not easy given the current state of the overall economy and the competitive landscape in the fire apparatus industry.

LightRock takes a look at:

Turmoil In The Fire Apparatus Industry

Turmoil in the fire apparatus industry is nothing new. Over the years, many old-line nameplates have fallen by the wayside. Pirsch, Maxim, Young, Mack, FMC and Grumman are but a few of the names that have faded from the scene over the last 20 or so years. More recently, we have seen a number of smaller manufacturers crash and burn. Examples include New Lexington, a manufacturer based in Pennsylvania and Elite, based in Tilleda, WI. New Lexington and Elite both went down ugly with New Lexington leaving several volley departments holding the bag after they made advance payments (without the protection of, for example, a performance bond) to the company for work that wound up never being performed. Elite failed to perform on a nearly 40 truck order for Montgomery County, MD.

Now it seems that the turmoil has spread to some larger, or at least better known, manufacturers.

[photopress:Seagrave_badge_1.jpg,thumb,centered]

In 2003, Seagrave was purchased by a private equity company called Ballamor. Mr. Jim Hebe, ex CEO of Freightliner and the man who resurrected the American LaFrance brand, was installed as CEO. He lasted about 18 months and then was, in effect, asked to leave his own company. Seagrave then installed a new CEO with prior experience in the bus industry to run the company. He lasted about the same length of time. Then, about a month ago he, along with Seagrave’s Chief Financial Officer and Sales/Marketing VP all departed abruptly. The private equity company that currently owns Seagrave, ELB Capital Management, then installed some current Seagrave employees into the top slots on an interim basis. ELB is a spin-off of Balamor and their site can be found HERE.  Industry sources say that ELB is now evaluating what their next moves might be.

[photopress:ALF_badge_1.jpg,full,centered]

After being resurrected in the mid-1990’s by the aforementioned Mr. Hebe, American LaFrance operated unsuccessfully under Freightliner ownership for a little over 10 years. Frustrated by about $400 million in losses over that time, Freightliner’s German parent company, what was then called Daimler-Chrysler, sold ALF to a private equity company called Patriarch Partners in 2006. Patriarch’s forte is dealing with “distressed companies.” That is a polite way of saying, “companies that aren’t making any money.” After hastily building a new factory near Charleston, South Carolina the company announced last week that over 100 employees were being furloughed for a month as others tried to figure out exactly which end was up. Merry Christmas.

[photopress:E_ONElogo_thumb_1_2.jpg,full,centered]

Because they are owned by a publicly traded company (Federal Signal) and their former leading position in the fire apparatus industry, Emergency One’s travails have been the most widely reported. E-One hasn’t been making money for some time and current projections are that they’ll lose about $12 million in 2007…that’s about a cool million a month. Investors and analysts have been clamoring for change and last week they got it with the abrupt resignation of Federal Signal’s CEO, Robert Welding. About 2 days later, as reported in the Ocala Star-Banner newspaper, a New York based investment company, Ramius Capital Group, had acquired a 7.5% stake in Federal Signal, a large enough slice to give them significant say-so in the future of the company. According to their website, “Ramius’ investment strategies are designed to address both institutional and high-net-worth individuals’ needs to preserve and grow allocated capital on an absolute basis.” Read: Turn things around and make money. Period.

One common thread with the current ownership of all three of these apparatus manufacturers is the involvement, to one extent or another, of private equity companies. In order to get a better feel of what is going on with these manufacturers, one needs to understand what a private equity company is. In basic terms, a private equity company is typically formed to take money from affluent private individual investors and to then purchase, in whole or in part, companies that make something or provide some service. Notice the use of the word investors. The people who put money into private equity expect a return on the funds they’ve invested. Say, for example, an investor kicks-in $1 million. He or she would expect to see more than that back either as profit from the ongoing operations of the companies that have been acquired or when the company is resold. How much should the investor see back? Let’s put it this way, someone with $1 million to invest can make a nice return with little or no risk. When they invest in private equity, they expect significant returns, in exchange for the risk they’ve taken on. In the case of all 3 of these companies, it is clear that, at least in terms of ongoing operations, this simply is not happening.

So, if the private equity company isn’t providing a return to the investors through the ongoing operations of the companies they’ve purchased, what’s the next potential move? Sell the company, in whole or in part, or in pieces. Of course, in order to make this work from the investor’s perspective, the sale(s) would have to result in a return of all the money invested up to that point plus some reasonable profit. Let’s go back to our investor who chipped in $1 million, say 4 years ago. Assuming that he or she hadn’t been asked for any additional money to cover operating losses at the acquired company and his or her expectation was a 15% annual return on the funds invested, the investor would be looking for upwards of $1.75 million back at the end of 4 years. Even if the investor was willing to accept a very low return, say 5% annually, he or she would still be looking for about $1.22 million. What does all this mean? In order to even minimally satisfy the private equity investors, the sale price would have to be 25% higher than what the company was acquired for 4 years ago. I think given the current performance of the companies we’ve discussed, along with the current state of the fire apparatus market in general, that generating this type of return would be…problematic.

From my seat, it looks like 2008 could be very eventful year in the fire apparatus business. Several apparatus manufacturers are at a financial crossroads. By the time FDIC rolls around it will be interesting to see who’s around and who owns whom.

LightRock’s Lessons: 

Not too long ago, the Geezer reported HERE on a North Carolina volley department that had apparently been the victim of a rip-off by a used fire apparatus “dealer” called Firehouse 66. As was pointed out, this company’s website makes some…how shall I say it…interesting claims. The one I like best is that they have “over 100 full-time employees” working for them. I’m sure… In looking at the site, I also noticed that the “face” of Firehouse 66 is identified as a “purchasing manager”, which I thought was a pretty interesting way of describing him.

What I’d like to do in this and subsequent columns is give everyone an overview and some perspective of the used fire apparatus business. Let’s get two things out on the table up front:

1.  As is the case with any business transaction, remember: If a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. There is a market for used fire apparatus and, as is the case in any market, the laws of supply and demand, as well as other business basics apply.2.  While the internet is a great thing, it is also a great place for some people with ethical problems to hide. It can also make a company “look” a lot bigger and better than it really is. Remember, the internet is a largely unregulated medium, so there is no central authority that investigates inflated claims or outright lies.So, you want to buy (or sell) a used fire truck. No problem. There are a variety of ways to do so and there are many companies in the marketplace to help you.

[photopress:tanker_1.jpg,full,alignleft]

A very attractive and relatively low risk way to maneuver through the used fire apparatus market is to look for a truck through one of the listing services. Fire departments (or others) with used fire apparatus to sell list it with a company and, for an agreed upon fee, the listing company then markets the used truck to potential buyers via the internet. In addition to posting key information and pricing about the used vehicle, the listing company also acts as a facilitator between the seller and potential buyers. They further add value by using their market knowledge in helping both buyers and sellers find the right fit at the right price. One such firm is Firetec. They can be found HERE. One important thing to keep in mind is that with this type of company, the actual sale/purchase transaction takes place between the seller and buyer.

Beyond the listing services are used fire truck brokers. These companies typically buy and then resell used fire apparatus. As such, there are at least 2 transactions that take place. First, the broker purchases the used truck from the seller and then ultimately, resells it to a purchaser. In between, the broker advertises the unit, possibly makes some repairs and/or upgrades before resale. Some of these brokers may also take a used truck on consignment. What does this mean? A seller gives the broker physical possession of the apparatus so that he can sell it. However, until the broker actually sells the apparatus, ownership is retained by the seller. Dealing with brokers can present some risks to both buyers and sellers. If you are the fire department selling your apparatus to a broker, it can be a fairly straightforward process. The broker makes an offer and, after a little back and forth, you ultimately agree on a selling price. The broker then provides you with a check. You give the broker title and the old rig goes away. One word of caution: Insist on a certified check or electronic funds transfer (EFT) before handing over the rig and the title.

Buyers can also face a risk in that, not unlike what can sometimes happen in say used cars, the broker could perhaps do a little “doctoring up” to mask over some of the signs of age or wear and tear, making the used vehicle appear better than it is. One example: Many older units have steel water tanks. A steel tank that is about done could be patched to make sure it holds water at the time of sale, but would then potentially become an issue shortly thereafter.

[photopress:old_truck.jpg,full,centered]
Chantal Dubuc photo

The area of consignment is where risks to both the buyer and seller can escalate and, unless I’m missing my guess, the North Carolina situation is probably an excellent example. In this case, the buyer of the used truck paid for the apparatus and physically took possession of it, however, they were unable to put it into service because they couldn’t get a title in order to properly register and license their “new” rig. Why, you might ask, can’t they? Simple: Because the selling department still has it…and they are going to keep it…until the broker gives them a check. This is their only leverage. You might ask, “Why doesn’t the broker give the seller a check? He’s gotten one from the buyer.” The answer is simple: The broker has likely used the check obtained from the buyer for some other purpose, rather than to pay the seller, keeping only his agreed upon percentage for selling the truck.

It is all about the vexing issue of cash flow. Cash flow can be an issue for any business, large or small. It can become an even bigger issue if you are an ethically challenged business person.

More on that and some other information about the used fire apparatus market in our next installment…

LightRock Returns To Exurbia:

As the most recent fires in Southern California faded from the national news and the major media outlets headed off for the next big story, an interesting and, I think, very telling op-ed piece appeared in last Sunday’s Washington Post. Entitled “Blazes on the New Frontier” and written by Dr. Steve Pyne, this piece put the most recent fires, and fire in what he calls the “new frontier” of America in a thoughtful and historical context. Dr. Pyne should know. He is a professor in the School of Life Sciences at the Arizona State University. He has a strong interest in how people and nature interact and is considered one of the world’s most renowned experts on fire. From reading and learning about Dr. Pyne, I feel safe in saying that fire as a force of nature and fire’s interaction with people and communities have been a principal focus of his life’s work.

Pyne, however, is not just another ivory tower academician. He understands fire from the perspective of a firefighter. For 15+ years, during summers, he worked as a firefighter on the north rim of the Grand Canyon, as well as in the Rocky Mountain National Park and Yellowstone. Pyne’s active firefighting experience ended in 1985, which gives him a unique perspective on the fires of the late ‘60’s, ‘70’s and early ‘80’s as compared to the fires we see today.

[photopress:rural01a_1_2.jpg,thumb,alignleft]

Before outlining some of the highlights of Dr. Pyne’s column for the Post, I’d like to refer you to an item that appeared on firegeezer.com some weeks ago. In that piece, we reported on the migration of large numbers of people to areas beyond the core cities and more traditional suburbs. We noted that as a part of this blurring between rural areas and the suburbs, a new form of community had emerged: The exburb. We also discussed structural firefighting and associated implications in the exburbs. You can take a look at that piece HERE.

Some highlights of Dr. Pyne’s column include:

1. The world of the wildland firefighter that Dr. Pyne experienced was a mix of firefighter and woodsman – a person who spent his time in the backcountry away from roads, homes, lodges, etc. and who knew the relationship between fire and the forest much like “a naturalist might know it through its flowers or mammals.”
2. Over the last 15 or so years, the world of the wildland firefighter has changed dramatically. Today’s wildland firefighters often deal in the wildland-urban interface or, to use some even newer terms, the I-zone or intermix. Call it what you will, Dr. Pyne notes that these terms “all describe the mingling of exburban developments with lands that are…wild, a kind of ecological omelet.”
3. While many of us might think the I-zone is about the west, it is not. Throughout the U.S., exburban developments are “interbreeding” with undeveloped areas as Americans seek to “recolonize its once-rural countryside.” This is the “New Frontier” that Dr. Pyne refers to in the tile of his piece.
4. Up until more recent times, firefighting in wildland-urban interface areas has been considered a part or subset of wildland firefighting. Dr. Pyne, however, argues that as development of the exburbs continues that it “makes more sense to consider it a subspecies of urban fire” since the world of firefighting in interface areas is becoming so closely tied to protecting the lives and property (i.e., structures) of exburban inhabitants.
5. The column also touches on issues as varied as how the Australians have reacted to the devastating Ash Wednesday fire of 1983 and the use of mandatory evacuations in the United States noting that, “we can defend our houses with an M16 and a bazooka if we choose, but not with a garden hose and a rake.”

[photopress:tahoe_house_1_2.jpg,full,centered] 

The entire thought provoking piece can be read HERE. I’d encourage you read it…and then re-read it. I think you will find that our firefighting brethren in the exburbs not only face the unique structural firefighting challenges that we have previously written about , but will likely face some additional and compelling challenges in the future.

LightRock says:

[photopress:tanker_a.jpg,full,centered]

Just as pumper designs are evolving, so too are tanker designs; especially for departments that are seeking to alter the balance of firefighting power in areas that lack reliable hydranted water sources. But, before I go any further, let’s define the word “tanker.” Unashamed east coast guy that I am, I’m talking about a truck with wheels…not an aircraft with wings. For people on the west coast, I believe the accepted term for a vehicle like this is “water tender.”

Tankers used to be the ugly ducklings of many a firefighting fleet and still today in many financially challenged departments it is not uncommon to see converted fuel oil trucks or ex-military vehicles being used as tankers. Over time, however, these trucks are being replaced. The FIRE Act grant program has accelerated this process as the grant reviewers seem to look favorably on grant applications that seek to remove these outdated firefighter killers from service.

[photopress:tanker_j.jpg,full,centered][photopress:tanker_h.jpg,full,centered]

Understanding where many departments are headed with their tankers also requires that one understands the philosophical change that is driving some of the changes. In a day gone by, many tankers were designed to principally support a long term firefighting operation with the underlying philosophy (reinforced by ISO ratings) being the ability to maintain a 250 GPM flow rate for a prolonged period of time…and when I say prolonged I mean hours, not minutes. Problem was (and is), this frequently resulted in outcomes that might best be described as “controlled burn-downs.” A more contemporary philosophy being adopted by many fire departments is to operate tankers that, while still having features that support sustained, relatively low flow operations, are principally configured to support the hard-hitting attack of modern Class A/CAFS capable pumpers.

Three of the big trends include:

1. Tandems not singles: An increased emphasis on safety, combined with the desire to carry more water, has fostered an evolution from single axle chassis to tandems. Tandems add stability and increased braking. GVWR increases dramatically.
2. More water: 1,500-2,000 gallon tanks have given way to 2,500-3,500 gallon…and sometimes even larger…tanks today. This translates into the ability to provide the water to support harder hitting initial attacks or, in shuttle operations, to bring back more water on every return trip.
3. Pump and Plumbing: In order to effectively support initial attack operations you have to be able to get the water from the tank on the tanker to the engine at the point of attack. This translates into features like 4″ or dual tank to pump plumbing, higher capacity pumps and larger diameter discharges. Many modern tankers can deliver 750-1,000 GPM from the tank.

[photopress:tanker_c.jpg,full,centered]

It is also important to note that in most cases these features are being added to the more traditional tanker features, which are being modernized and made more user friendly as well. For example, the venerable folding tank or “porta-pond” is still popular but, it is now often carried in some type of powered rack that allows it to be lowered into a position where 1-2 firefighters can remove and set up the tank safely and with relative ease. Dump valves have also evolved. Modern tankers often can be found with not only a dump at the rear, but on both sides. Manually operated valves are being supplanted by air or electrically powered valves that can be operated from the cab and/or other remote locations on the tanker.

Both fire departments and manufacturers have also been devoting a great deal of attention to enhanced safety and roadworthiness, a topic worthy of a column by itself. Design elements that are under constant scrutiny are water tank baffling and center of gravity. On the chassis front, electronic stability control systems are becoming available from both custom and commercial chassis manufacturers and are being quickly embraced by departments that are purchasing new tankers.  

[photopress:tanker_k.jpg,full,centered]

Make no mistake, modern tankers are becoming a more integral part of both the the initial attack and overall firefighting operation. As noted above, they are part of an ongoing effort by fire departments to alter the firefighting balance of power in areas where hydranted supply is non-existent or “sketchy.” (That’s a word I learned from my 19 year old daughter.)  Combine a modern Class A foam/CAFS capable pumper with a 750-1,000 gallon tank and a high capability tanker that carries 2,500+ gallons of water that can be delivered now and you’ve got a 1-2 punch that can really make a difference.

[photopress:tanker_e.jpg,full,centered]

Update, Oct. 6:  An editorial adjustment was inserted but it did not alter the content of the message….ed.

 LightRock checks in:

In a column a few weeks ago, we addressed the amount of growth in areas beyond the traditional suburbs. It is now estimated that about 25% of the U.S. population lives in these areas, often without benefit of municipal water systems and, as such, no fire hydrants. In that column we promised to address what fire departments in these areas are doing in response to this trend. This week, I’d like to talk about some of the ways pumper design for departments in these areas is evolving.

One very straightforward change is that water tank capacity on pumpers continues to get larger. In days gone by, the water tanks on pumpers were often 500-gallon capacity, sometimes larger and in some cases even smaller. Today, while 500-gallon tanks are still used in some urban areas, 750-gallon tanks have become the norm and 1,000 gallon tanks are also quite common. 1,250-gallon and even larger tanks are not unheard of. Larger capacity water tanks can extend initial attack time and/or allow initial attacks with higher flow lines.

[photopress:fire_tanker.jpg,full,centered]

Class A foam and Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS) are becoming more popular. These technologies have been around now for the better part of 3 decades, but over the last 5-10 years more reliable and easier to use systems have helped make these firefighting technologies much more mainstream. When used for structural firefighting, Class A foam is injected into water at a rate of .3-.5% and serves to enhance the extinguishing effectiveness of “plain” water, contributing to faster knockdowns, less post-knockdown burnback and less time consuming overhaul. At injection rates in the .5 to 1% range, fire streams with Class A foam can also be used for enhanced exposure protection. No special nozzles are needed when using Class A foam. I often tell people to think of Class A as water on steroids.

CAFS takes this concept to an even higher level. In addition to water and Class A foam, compressed air is injected into the fire stream. This creates an emulsion that offers even greater knockdown power with a number of other benefits, including lighter charged hoselines and the ability to project streams greater distances. CAF also sticks to whatever it hits. Effective use of CAFS typically involves some special hardware and some additional training, but for those who have seen CAFS in action, this added level of complexity is well worth it. CAFS can also be effectively applied as part of an exterior based attack. (Yes, I know the term “exterior attack” makes many of you cringe, but given the current state of affairs in building construction, it is a reality of modern firefighting life.) If Class A is water on steroids, think of CAF as “water squared.”

[photopress:cafs.jpg,full,centered]

The enhanced extinguishing effectiveness of Class A and CAFS have been described and documented in a number of studies, including a landmark study conducted by the Los Angeles County Fire Department about 7 years ago. In referring to CAF, one magazine article about the LACoFD study put it well: Bubbles beat water.

Think of the enhanced capability of a pumper with a 750-1,000 gallon tank and Class A foam or, even better, CAFS. Initial attack effectiveness grows significantly. A 1-3/4″ handline flowing 150 GPM with Class A foam is going to perform more like a 200+ GPM handline. What is knocked down stays down. Another way to express this lift in effectiveness is to think of water tank capacity. A pumper with a 1,000 gallon tank and Class A foam “acts” like it is a pumper with 1,500 gallons onboard. Use of CAFS takes these numbers and blows them away.

Another change in pumper design involves water intake and discharge plumbing that is oriented to quickly developing and maintaining higher flows. Many of today’s pumpers have multiple large diameter (4″ or greater) intakes and multiple discharges for high flow handlines and the increasingly popular lightweight, portable/quickly deployable master stream appliances.

For fire departments in the areas beyond the ‘burbs, a pumper like the one we’ve described gives the officer and crew the ability to hit hard, hit fast and hit safely.

This brief video demonstrates the quick knock-down and residual smothering properties of a CAFS-charged hose line.

[MEDIA=15]

See you next week…

 LightRock says:

Back in February, there was a townhouse fire in Raleigh, NC, but not just any townhouse fire. Around 40 townhouses were destroyed in a fire that swept through a new development. Most of the homes were occupied. The fire started in the middle of the day. The buildings were built by a major homebuilder to meet current codes. Raleigh has a multi-station, well regarded full-time career fire department. The fire made a lot of people, including the mayor of Raleigh, ask how something like this could happen.

[photopress:azz_06.jpg,full,centered]

As a result, the City of Raleigh commissioned a study by a Charlotte based engineering firm to look at the fire and what went wrong. As we’ve discussed the firefighting issues associated with “modern” building materials and construction, all perfectly allowable by current codes and the Geezer has found some good examples from the east coast of the U.S. to western Canada. I don’t think any of them have been quite so telling as the Pine Knoll Townes fire in Raleigh.

An article in last week’s Raleigh News and Observer contained some nuggets worth highlighting and commenting on.

“The Pine Knoll complex met building requirements, but officials were stunned by the ferocious nature of the fire, which was fueled by unusually dry conditions and high winds.” Officials shouldn’t have been. Everything about Pine Knoll Townes was designed to burn, right down to the pine straw in the flower beds. Unusually dry conditions and high winds? I hardly think so. Last winter wasn’t particularly wet in Raleigh, however, the last time I checked North Carolina hasn’t become a desert either. Winds weren’t so high that the news helicopters couldn’t fly.

[photopress:azz_03.jpg,full,centered]
Wind-resistant smoke

The study “recommends that Raleigh limit the use of combustible materials for building and landscaping for new townhouses and take steps to prevent urban wildfires.” I think this quote is particularly significant. It shows how fire-unaware building code officials really are. The City of Raleigh had to hire a consultant to tell them that they should limit the “use of combustible materials.” Something so fundamental and, for most readers of FireGeezer.com, obvious is a revelation. And by all means, don’t skip over the last 2 words of the quote…urban wildfires. I have to admit, that is the first time I’ve seen that term used and it is very telling. It would appear that wildfires are no longer confined to the wildland or to what the guys out west call “interface” areas. Instead, we are apparently building townhouse projects that, by virtue of their design, create the conditions for urban wildfires.

“We appreciate [the city] taking the time to prepare the report.” So was the stunningly underwhelming reaction of Dan Tingen, who is chairman of the North Carolina Building Code Council. Tingen is also a Raleigh area builder. He also commented on the Council’s consideration of limiting the use of pine straw in flower beds. Some in the firefighting community try to vilify builders and developers. I’ll give Mr. Tingen the benefit of the doubt. He’s probably not a bad guy. At the very least, he’s uninformed and not aware of the fire related implications of what is being built today. Builders aren’t focused on fire. Issues such as manufacturing efficiency and affordability are their areas of focus. Perhaps Pine Knoll Townes will cause Mr. Tingen to consider the probably unintended consequences of today’s building codes and materials.

[photopress:azz_02.jpg,full,centered][photopress:azz_04.jpg,full,centered]

With the U.S. housing market taking a downward turn, it is probably worth remembering that for the last 20 or so years, there has been a residential housing boom throughout North America. Most of the single and multi family residential construction during this time has been lightweight and unprotected by built in systems. While building officials consider whether there should be limits on pine straw or requiring less combustible materials for the eaves of townhouses, this is of little consequence to the firefighting community. The deed is done. Millions of these buildings have already been built. As is being documented with some regularity, they burn like mad. Nothing is going to change these realities and we are going to have to learn to effectively deal with them.

LightRock says: 

[photopress:rural01a.jpg,full,alignleft]

In the first column I ever penned for Firegeezer.com, I discussed some of the fire problems that arise from “modern” techniques and materials used in today’s single and multi-family residential construction. At this juncture, at least in firefighting circles, it is a well accepted fact that this type of construction brings with it a number of firefighting challenges. These would be significant enough alone, however, some recent media coverage has highlighted another troubling element of today’s emerging firefighting equation: Many of these new homes are being built in areas beyond well established cities and suburbs and lack the infrastructure (read: hydrants) needed to effectively fight fires.

Last Friday’s USA Today featured a front page article on the topic, which can be seen HERE. Additional research by the Geezer revealed that this article was taken from another, longer article originally published in another Gannett owned newspaper in Salisbury, MD and can be seen HERE.

Working through or discussing this issue fully in a single column wouldn’t do it justice so, what I’d like to do is layout some of what I see as the key factors surrounding this issue and address some more specific firefighting implications over the next few weeks.

1.  Many Americans crave space. Whether it is a full-time home or some sort of vacation/weekend getaway secondary residence, many people like the feel of open spaces. Some people moving to these areas apparently don’t fully appreciate is that with open space comes distance, not only from your neighbors, but from shopping, other conveniences and emergency services. According to the articles, 25% of the U.S. population lives in areas beyond the cities and more well established suburban areas. What that means is somewhere in the range of 75-80 million people. The way I see it, that is a lot of houses.

 [photopress:rural03a.jpg,full,centered]

2.  Growth. Plain and simple, the country is continuing to grow…and it is growing in ways that haven’t been seen before. The U.S. population is currently estimated at just over 300 million and many experts in the population field feel this is likely understated by 5-10% because immigrants (legal and not), as well as other groups slip under the radar. If one assumes that this is the case, then the actual population is 315-330 million. Where are all these people going? Many cities and virtually all of the suburban areas are continuing    (more…)

 [photopress:fri1.jpg,full,centered]

As I sit down to write this week’s column, I’m in my hotel room in Atlanta where I am attending Fire Rescue International (FRI), which is the annual conference of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. It has probably been close to 20 years since Atlanta last hosted this show. Flying down yesterday, I wondered what the assembled Chiefs would be talking about at the show. I then asked myself: What should the Chiefs be discussing?

As we are now about 2/3 of the way through 2007, I think it is safe to say that within the firefighting community it has been a very interesting year thus far…and not always in positive ways. So, with respect to the Chiefs, please allow me to offer my list of the top 5 topics that should be discussed at FRI.

1.  Firefighter Safety, Health and Fitness: Over the last several years, we have continued to see improvements in protective gear and the introduction of new technology all designed to make the jobs firefighters perform safer. We have also seen additional emphasis placed on health and fitness. New laws, regulations and procedures like 2 in/2 out and RIT have become mandated and/or widely accepted. Despite all this, where are we right now? We are on pace for 110-120 fatalities this year, which is more than last year and clearly not indicative of a positive trend. Last year, 50% of the fatalities were heart attacks. This year we have seen some firefighters die heroically and a lot of them dying, well, let’s just say in less than heroic circumstance. I think the Chiefs need to be talking about what needs to happen in terms of culture and overall strategy to create a real sea shift on the safety, health and fitness front. Right now, I think we’re treading water…if that.2.  Staffing and Resource Deployment: Over the last 10 years, discussions on staffing have all seemingly boiled down to one question: “Do you have 3 or 4?” I know the number of people per unit or per apparatus is important, but Chiefs, don’t you think it is incumbent on you to get the debate on a more strategic track? What do we staff? How do we staff it? Who do we staff it with? When do we staff it? Some people were thinking fires would just go away, but clearly they have not. At the same time, we have seen a number of other “all hazards” roles and missions become engrained in fire department operations. In many locales, the demand for EMS and other types of non-fire related services has skyrocketed. The Chiefs should be discussing staffing and resource deployment from a macro, not micro, perspective and coming up with effective ways to meet future service demands.

[photopress:fri2.jpg,full,centered]

3.  Borderless Response and Interoperability: The fire/rescue service has always been turf conscious, often because Chiefs…being Chiefs…can be very turf conscious. “That is my first due.” Ever hear that one? Some jurisdictions erect the functional equivalent of a brick wall around their borders…nobody in and nobody out…except when the really big one hits. When it does, the current expectation is that “cross border” and regional responses will be seamless, with everyone having perfect interoperability. We all know that unless borderless response is the norm day to day that it is never going to work well when the you know what is really on. In addition, we need to be regularly sharing resources as part of a more strategic approach to staffing and resource deployment. Once this happens, then a lot of the smaller issues (hose threads, standard assignments, etc.) work themselves out. Note to Chiefs: Please discuss at FRI.

4.  EMS: 911 call received. Closest available fire truck and ambulance are dispatched and respond at breakneck speed. Patient is assessed, packaged and transported to a hospital. We obtain patient information and (later) send a bill. Seems simple enough, but we all know it is not. In 2007 there are still huge cultural issues in the fire service regarding delivery of EMS. Often, the only “measurable” we have is response time. Is our patient care effective? Are we saving the numbers of people we should? Are we effectively using our response resources and applying tools (other than a sledgehammer) to what and who we send and how we send them? Are we effectively integrating with the rest of the health care delivery system or are we just out there doing our thing while the rest of the health care community does theirs? I’d like the Chiefs to be discussing EMS and not just how it was used to get another person assigned to an engine or was a great card to play in budget negotiations. The Chiefs, as our leaders, need to be talking about the “M” in EMS.

[photopress:fri3.jpg,full,centered]

5.  Training and Personnel Development: Throughout our society, training and educational methodologies, especially for adult learners, are rapidly evolving. I can get an advanced degree from an accredited, reputable university while doing much of my work on line or in what is known as a “blended” format that combines technology assisted learning on your own, at you own pace, with more structured classroom, group and practical exercises. Yet, as an example, if I wanted to learn how to be an EMT in my state today, the only way to do that is to drive to a location 2-3 nights a week and some weekends and be lectured to for the majority of the time. Sure, there would be some practical exercises, but the whole process is only partially driven by outcomes or demonstrated performance. Most of it is driven by hours, almost as though the hours are some sort of penance. I feel this way and I’m old. Imagine what a 22 year old feels like…they are children of the internet age. How do you think they react to being read to in a stuffy classroom where cutting edge technology is an overhead projector? I’d like to offer that the Chiefs need to be spending a lot of time talking about how to effectively and efficiently deliver training, not only at the entry level, but throughout a person’s tenure in the fire/rescue community.

The Geezer is always telling me that in the blogosphere you have to be short. No pun intended, I’ve probably fallen short in that regard this week. So, I’ll close for now and make my way over to the convention center. Perhaps I’ll even find some interesting things to write about next week.
…says LightRock

I think it is time for us to rethink the kind of response vehicles used by Chief officers who routinely respond to emergencies and act as incident commanders. I’m talking about the kinds of vehicles used by Battalion or District Chiefs in the larger departments and the “duty Chief” in many volley departments…..LightRock

[photopress:crv1.jpg,full,centered]

In the contemporary history of the fire/rescue service we have seen a number of other vehicle types evolve significantly to keep up with the importance of the mission they help perform and as training, equipment and technology improved. Not so much so with the Chief’s “buggy”. For example, as the 1970’s began ambulances were mostly either converted Chevy Carryalls or Cadillac hearses. Along came EMT and paramedic training. Fire departments began making EMS one of their mainstream missions. By the time the 1970’s ended, Cadillacs and Carryalls were gone, replaced by larger, more capable modular “box” style ambulances. Similarly, the era of the hydraulic rescue tool began about 30 years ago and along with it began greatly enhanced training and importance for rescue generally. This has lead to much more capable (and typically larger) rescue trucks.

While the importance of command has evolved in a comparable manner during the same period, the Chief’s car has not kept up. The Chief’s vehicle of the 1970’s/1980’s was a cop car painted red or perhaps a station wagon. There’s been some movement but, in the overall, not much has happened beyond that. What was a station wagon is perhaps now a SUV. It is a ride…but not a lot more.

[photopress:crv2.jpg,thumb,centered][photopress:crv3.jpg,thumb,centered][photopress:crv4.jpg,thumb,centered][photopress:crv5.jpg,thumb,centered]

What I’d like you to consider is that we rethink the kinds of vehicles used in this role.Today’s Chief is responsible for orchestrating the command and communications functions at the emergency incident. The Chief is there to develop and implement a strategy and ensure that the emergency incident is taken care of in a safe, controlled and effective manner…standing in the cold, with rain hitting him in the face as he leans in between the open clam shell doors at the back of a Suburban. Depending on which direction the wind is blowing, maybe he’s inhaling a good dose of exhaust fumes as he does this. Or perhaps he’s sitting in the front of a Crown Vic or Expedition with some papers and a clipboard in his lap. Let’s face it, while a vehicle like this provides the Chief with a fixed position to operate from, it can’t fully or effectively support the command function.

[photopress:crv6.jpg,full,centered]

While I am not sure what this Chief’s Response Vehicle (CRV) of the future should look like, I’d like to offer the following criteria for your consideration.

1. The CRV must be rapidly deployable and support the kinds of serious emergency incidents that are regularly encountered by fire departments. I’m thinking of 1-2 alarm structure fires, multi-vehicle/multi-patient motor vehicle accidents or perhaps a kickin’ brush fire. The Chief needs to be able to arrive and “go to work” with a vehicle that can move from response to on scene operations quickly.
2. Technology is key. We’ll never get beyond grease pencils and Velcro tags until we have CRVs that can support better technology. Beyond radio, we need a vehicle that can manage information from video cameras, thermal imagers, the internet and other sources. The CRV also needs to be the platform we use to help us bring next generation personnel accountability systems into the mainstream.
3. Chief, it is time to come in out of the cold. The CRV needs to provide the incident commander and a group of at least 2-3 others with a dry, reasonably quiet, environmentally controlled and well illuminated work space. I know this is a cultural shift, but it is one we need to embrace. The Chief’s operating environment needs to facilitate thinking and decision making.

When I talk to my friends in the fire service about the CRV of the future, I have to say that a lot of them have a hard time seeing how we get beyond where we are now. They are reluctant to step out and do something that is radically different. To them, and to you, I’d ask you to think back to the days of the Cadillac and Carryall. Imagine when someone walked in and said, “I’ve got a really cool idea. The next ambulance we buy should be mounted on a chassis like a pickup truck and have a big box on the back. It is way bigger than what we have now and will cost a lot more.” I bet they told this guy he was crazy. Yet, in a period of less than 5 years, the kinds of vehicles used as ambulances had completely…and I mean completely…shifted.

As it relates to initial response Chief’s vehicles, the same thing can and should happen again.

What do the fire departments in Charleston, Contra Costa and Noonday have in common? If you answered that all three have recently experienced incidents involving multiple firefighter fatalities, you’d be right…but only partially right.

What they also share in common is that the incidents in these 3 locales involved firefighters actually dying in a fire. We all know about Charleston. Some, if not most of us know that in Contra Costa, CA two members of an engine company crew were killed in a flashover while attempting to make a grab of two elderly occupants of a burning house. In Texas, two members of a volunteer department called Noonday were killed when a roof apparently collapsed on them during an interior attack on a house fire. Say what you will about any or all of these incidents, but at least these guys died with their boots on, engaged in hand to hand combat with our sworn enemy. What’s also noteworthy is that this isn’t the way it usually happens.

We are all aware that the far more common firefighter fatality scenario involves someone just dropping dead at a fire or other emergency incident. Or, they make it back to the station, (or back home) start to feel like hell and die there. It happens all over. It doesn’t make any difference if it is a big city or some small burg. It happens all the time. Every year, at least 1/3 (typically closer to ½) of the firefighter fatalities happen just this way.

You might be asking at this point, “Where’s he going with this?” Before I write another word, I want to layout 3 things:

1.  Don’t interpret anything I write here as diminishing anyone’s sacrifice because of the way they died.2.  I’ve been around the fire service for over 30 years… I’ve been around a lot of firefighters of all shapes, sizes and descriptions.3.  Even though my firefighting experience is all volunteer (mostly in a combined career/volunteer organization) I have never really felt “connected” to the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), the organization formed to represent the interests of the volunteer fire service.Now that we have that out of the way, one of the reasons that we have so many firefighter “drop dead” fatalities is because of poor cardiovascular fitness, with weight being one of the major contributing factors. Go to a trade show. Look around your firehouse. We all know it. There are a lot of firefighters who are overweight…and in big way. I dare say their diets aren’t exactly pristine and they probably haven’t done much in the gym lately either. So, we take this person, wrap him up in 50-60 pounds of gear and tell him to go to max exertion on a 100-degree day. All too often, he tachs out and before you know it, he’s getting a last ride in the hosebed of a pumper. It’s not sexy or glamorous. He’s just dead.With all of our emphasis on “safety” you’d figure that this issue would get more attention, but until recently, it seems to have been like the crazy aunt in the basement: She’s there…but nobody wants to talk about her. Enter the aforementioned NVFC and their Heart-Healthy Firefighter Program. This program gives voice to this issue and was designed to help firefighters become more heart-healthy, hopefully lowering the incidence of heart attack related deaths in the fire service. What a concept…

[photopress:bp.jpg,full,alignleft]

At fire service trade shows all over the country, attendees can stop by a booth and get a free health screening, including checks of blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose. A pro football player, who is also a firefighter, is on hand to promote being heart-healthy and a rather engaging chef does live, low-fat, heart-healthy cooking demonstrations. (After watching one of the demonstrations, I likened it to being part of the studio audience for a cooking show on TV.) In addition, NVFC has published a firefighter heart-healthy cookbook. There’s also a resource guide and a website that you can visit HERE. As a part of this effort, NVFC has also launched a National Firefighter Health Week, observed this year during the week of August 13-17. Each day during the week will highlight a specific firefighter health issue, including behavioral health, cancer, heart-heath, nutrition and lifestyle.

The presentation and organization of the events at the shows, from what I’ve observed, is very well done. The materials and site seem clean, well researched and no-nonsense. The website also features links to a number of other excellent health related sites. My concern is that some members of the firefighting community might give this effort short shrift because of who is sponsoring it. As I mentioned above, I’ve never felt much of a connection with the NVFC and I think that is what a lot of others may feel too. What I’d ask that you do, however, is to set your biases and preconceived notions aside. Check out the website. Stop by the Heart-Healthy booth at the next regional or national trade show you attend. I think you’ll find information that is both valuable and thought provoking.

[photopress:health_week_logo.gif,full,alignleft]

 LightRock says:

After I attended all 3 days of the Firehouse Expo in Baltimore last week, the Geezer asked if there was anything at the show that was of interest and that would be worth writing about. Especially as I sit here watching events unfold in the Twin Cities, one vehicle that caught my eye at the show seems particularly relevant. In addition, watching this bridge incident has put me in a decidedly unopinionated frame of mind.

[photopress:z5.jpg,thumb,alignleft]

Since the September 11 attacks there has been a huge amount of money spent under the banner of homeland security. For example, there have been a significant number of mobile command units acquired by localities using – in whole or in part – federal grant funding. Radio and communications equipment have been a favorite, with “interoperability” being a word that has become routinely used. Another area that has gotten a lot of attention is decontamination. Decon showers, tents, trailers, trucks…you name it. As I have watched and, to an extent, participated in all of this, one area that I have always thought about is what I’d describe as “mass transit” from mass casualty incidents. At what point does the typically 1 on 1 patient to ambulance relationship become an impractical and ineffective way to move patients to medical facilities?

[photopress:z1.jpg,full,alignleft]

While I am not sure that there is any particular magic number of patients – there are certainly lots of variables in the equation – what does seem clear is that at a certain point, regardless of the locality, there will be incidents that outstrip the use of conventional ambulances to move patients. In the current security environment, one obviously has to consider a terrorist act in say an airport, school or shopping mall. A couple other examples that come to mind are a passenger train derailment or a tornado that moves through an urban area. The potential scenarios are limitless. So, let’s pick a number. The number I have in my head is 500. Let’s say that there are 500 people injured in a real mass casualty incident. They need medical attention and transportation to hospitals. The scenarios that go through my head aren’t those where everyone is dead (as is usually the case in a plane crash) but where there are scores who are injured.

Clearly, I haven’t been the only one thinking about this.

[photopress:z3.jpg,full,centered]

Using a bus as a platform, a North Carolina based company, working with the fire/rescue departments in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (with Montgomery County, MD being the “lead” agency), has produced a group (more…)

In my now one-month-long association with FireGeezer.com, the Geezer has given me an opportunity to write about some timely and interesting topics including building construction/materials, incident command, aggressive interior attack and fire apparatus rollover protection systems. During this time, we’ve contributed to the discussions over Charleston and, as it turns out, seen some fires – like the one in Edmonton, Alberta — that have added additional relevance to some of the topics we’ve written about.

Speaking of timely topics, while I’d never asked the Geezer about it, I’d often wondered when he might dip our collective cyber toe in the water on EMS. With FossilMedic’s column earlier this week, I guess that question has been answered.

It all started with that damn TV show “Emergency.” For seven seasons during the 1970’s, the American TV viewing public got a weekly dose of things that they’d never seen before. There were these 2 guys that worked in a firehouse. They got in this open bedded utility truck with red lights and a siren and saved at least one life a week. In doing this, they talked to ER doctors over this thing that looked like a cross between a radio and a phone, gave their patients IV’s and drugs and hit them with these big jolts of electricity. They acted like they were almost doctors. When things were especially nasty they got help from what? The crew off a fire engine. In 1972 this was completely foreign to all but a handful of communities in the United States.

[photopress:julie_1_2.jpg,full,alignleft]

As a youngster (I’m not as old as the Geezer or FossilMedic) I used to watch “Emergency” with rapt attention. My brother liked it too. My sisters and Mom tolerated it and my Dad, well, he was OK with it, but for perhaps a different reason. During the scenes where Roy and Johnny were attending to a patient, he’d sit in his chair and say, “Come on fellas, hurry up and take that guy to see nurse Dixie.” His comment was lost on me at the time, but a couple years ago when I looked at some reruns on TVLand I got it. On “Emergency,” Nurse Dixie (played by Julie London) was every guy’s nurse fantasy personified.

The late Jack Webb created “Emergency” and, while he’s best known for shows like “Dragnet” and “Adam 12″, with “Emergency” he struck the match that ignited the wildfire that became fire service EMS. During the 1970’s, (more…)

[photopress:rollover_1.jpg,full,centered]
firefightingnews.com photo

 

Fire Apparatus Rollover Protection 

THIS WEEK FIREGEEZER ASKED ME to pen a few words about fire apparatus side-rollover protection systems. It is well established within the firefighting community that apparatus accidents are a major cause of firefighter fatalities. Beyond the fatalities are thousands of serious injuries that result from these accidents. Rollover accidents are always a significant percentage of the incidents that involve both fatalities and serious injuries.

In today’s fire service environment, fire apparatus are on the road (and thus exposed to the potential for accidents) more than ever. In many departments, the engine company apparatus has become a multi-purpose first responder vehicle that can easily make a dozen emergency responses a day. Even in less populated areas, the local FD is considered the “go to” organization for just about anything except law enforcement and these departments too are on the road, often making long distance responses on less than ideal roads.

[photopress:rollover_2.jpg,full,alignleft]
firefighterclosecalls.com photo

About 5 years ago, one of the major fire apparatus manufacturers, working with a company that specializes in occupant safety systems for the automotive industry, introduced a system that was designed to prevent fatalities and lessen the severity of firefighter injuries in rollover accidents. They called the system Side Roll Protection, or SRP for short. Today, 5 of the custom chassis manufacturers offer similar systems, all developed in concert with the same company.

How does the system work?

First, there is what can best be described as an electronic (more…)

LightRock returns with another coffee-table topic.

If one takes a look at the history of firefighting in the United States, you see an advance from buckets, to hand operated pumps, to horse drawn steam operated pumpers and then on to motorized fire apparatus, which has now been around for about the last 100 years. Throughout all of this evolution, however, the method of water application stayed relatively the same: With the exception of the occasional episodes of “leather lunging” inside a building, the water was mostly applied to the fire from the outside. (Note to readers: This column is not about fire apparatus.)

The introduction of the fully self contained breathing apparatus about 50 years ago fundamentally changed how we applied water to structural fires. In addition to being a quantum leap in respiratory protection for firefighters, it had a huge impact on structural firefighting tactics. Protected by SCBA, firefighters could go deep inside buildings in conditions that would otherwise have quickly killed them. From the 1960’s on, firefighters could “go in” like never before…and that they did. As other items of protective gear improved, so did our ability to operate in ever more hostile interior environments…and that we do. In many fire departments, initiating an “aggressive interior attack” has become an instinctive, trademark (some would say knee jerk) approach to structure fires.

[photopress:msa_cannister.jpg,thumb,centered]
MSA cannister mask

A caption that accompanied a photo story on a website that chronicles the current day exploits of a major east coast fire department says it well. In describing the approach taken on a “fire showing” basement fire in a rowhouse, the caption said, “This two-story middle of the row had the basement well involved on arrival. Very aggressive (read: interior) firefighting in typical…style kept this fire from extending into exposures on either side.” As I read this caption, I thought about some of the statements made in the wake of the Charleston tragedy by Chief Thomas. If you read through what he said, his point was simple: In Charleston, we go in…we nail the fires fast…and that is what we have always done to keep our city from burning down.

At my firefighting core, I’m an east coast guy…I admit it. So, let’s be honest. At least in the mid-Atlantic and northeast, the aggressive interior attack is the calling card of the major urban departments and the well organized and trained volley departments. Being an “out-standing” firefighter is considered the approach taken by poorly trained, coward wimps.

Or is it?

Let’s go back to Charleston again. Read some of the public pronouncements and website postings. Lots of people, including many in our business, were talking about the interior attack as something outdated and unsafe. How, some asked, could any firefighter in their right mind, strap all this stuff on and drag a hose into a burning building? In considering the message I wanted to convey here, I thought that perhaps some of my initial impressions of these comments were off; that they were strictly referring to how unsafe they felt it was to take such an approach at the Sofa Super Store so, I looked again. Sure enough, several of the comments went beyond that, seeming to question the “go in” approach in the overall.

[photopress:row_house_fire.jpg,full,centered]
KGO image

In the contemporary environment, where do we go with the aggressive interior attack? I don’t have the answer, but I do know that today is not yesterday. Lots has changed from building construction/materials to contents and interior finishes. The window of “acceptable” or, at least rationally justifiable circumstances surrounding firefighter fatalities in structure fires has also gotten very small…if it hasn’t been completely closed already. At the same time, I don’t know that structural firefighting can or should ever become an absolute zero risk equation. While I agree with those who say that no firefighter should ever die trying to save someone’s stuff, I also feel that the firefighting profession does exist to respond, intervene and make a difference, not to just be quasi passive observers. In other words, we perhaps need to rethink where the right balance is. To ask ourselves, “What makes sense?” Let’s hope that recent events provide the catalyst for asking the tough questions and for an open discussion of where we need to go in the future.