This month, we asked Advisory Board Members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley: “Should National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, mandate the amount and type of ancillary equipment fire apparatus should carry?”
Bill Adams
My answer is NO. NFPA 1901, Chapter 1 Administration, sentence 1.1* states: “Scope. This standard defines the requirements for new automotive fire apparatus and trailers designed to be used under emergency conditions to transport personnel and equipment and to support the suppression of fires and mitigation of other hazardous situations.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines scope as an intention and a range of operation. Sans the descriptive and moderating adjectives, I interpret NFPA 1901 defining its scope solely as the requirements for a vehicle (or trailer) to transport personnel and equipment. That’s it. It says nothing about ancillary equipment that must or should be carried. It is my opinion that requirements beyond describing the actual vehicle to move people and/or equipment exceed the boundaries of NFPA 1901’s own definition and the intent of the document.
There is no disparaging the objective of any NFPA standard in providing safe environments for firefighters when performing their duties. NFPA 1901 has self-described that environment as the vehicle “to get them there.” What they’ve brought with them and what they do after they get there are not 1901’s responsibility. Over the years, it appears 1901 has self-adopted criteria that is beyond its scope—including ancillary equipment—without any appreciable pushback from the fire service.
Liability
NFPA 1901 is a nationwide voluntary consensus standard that is not legally binding unless formally adopted by a political subdivision. There are statements within it that, if not followed, might put the fire department or its authority having jurisdiction in legal jeopardy.
Could fire departments be liable if “something bad happens” that can be attributed to not carrying a piece of ancillary equipment that NFPA 1901 mandates, suggests, recommends, or says a purchaser “ought to” consider carrying? Ask your attorney if contributory negligence is applicable.
American Fire Service
The NFPA’s Web site1 points out that 82% (24,220) of the 29,537 fire departments in the United States in 2019 were volunteer. Career departments maintain their own individualities, albeit within the constraints of political overseers. Volunteers’ autonomy can be and usually is much more liberal.
A standardized fire truck may not be suitable to fit the needs of every career and volunteer department in the country. It’s equally so for a single list of even minimum ancillary equipment NFPA 1901 wants each rig to carry. I venture many departments would like to say, “Let NFPA 1901 describe a rig to get us there safely, and we’ll decide what to bring and how to use it.”
America’s fire service is not nationalized, meaning the federal government does not own, control, or pay for it. It is federalized, meaning control rests with the local jurisdictions that own and pay for it. The local jurisdictions should decide what to purchase.
Important: Some apparatus and ancillary equipment may be voluntarily subject to the requirements of regionalized entities including governmental agencies and local organizations. An example: “If you want to participate in our mutual-aid group, here are the rules you must comply with, which include minimum apparatus and ancillary equipment requirements.” That is 100% justifiable.
Civil Defense
In the 1950s, both the American and Canadian governments provided local communities with hundreds of standardized fire and rescue apparatus for use in the event of an enemy attack and specified emergencies. Perhaps not intentional, it was an attempt at standardization. There were specific rules for their use. To the best of my knowledge, they did not require specific ancillary equipment to be carried. The programs were eventually discontinued.
United Kingdom
A British Web site2 noted that because of mass bombings throughout the United Kingdom during World War II, about 1,600 autonomous fire departments (brigades) were “nationalized” into a single entity, the National Fire Service (NFS). However, a 1942 Fire Engineering article3 said the Brits were not “nationalized” but the government did pay 25% of the expenses and provided the apparatus (appliances).
In a turnaround, a 1948 Fire Engineering article4 said after the war, the Fire Services Act of 1947 did away with the nationalized fire service, with the fire brigades reverting back to what they called “local authority,” where most remain today albeit with some amalgamation.
California’s Standardization
Although California has not suffered from massive aerial bombardments, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal/OES) created a statewide mutual-aid program featuring standardized apparatus with mandatory ancillary equipment and interestingly standardized equipment locations. Paraphrasing the Cal/OES Web site5, “Established in 1950, California’s fire and rescue mutual-aid system is a one-of-a-kind partnership between state and local government that provides equipment and personnel surge capacity to protect the state during wildfires and other hazards. Cal/OES has a fleet of 114 Type 1 fire engines, 68 Type 3 fire engines, and 34 Type 6 fire engines strategically placed with local fire agencies throughout California to combat wildfires and respond to other disasters and emergencies.”
Ed Boring, fleet manager at HME-Ahrens Fox, says: “HME-Ahrens Fox has delivered over 200 units to California’s OES including Types 1, 3, and 6 engines and Type 1 WMD/Haz-Mat apparatus with the ancillary equipment required to be carried on them.”
He continues: “Type 1 engines are NFPA 1901 Chapter 5 compliant with the exceptions of the self-contained breathing apparatus and spare cylinders, which are provided by the assignee. They also carry a basic wildland hand-crew cache for 4 personnel, with the exception of PPE, and a basic Type 3 collapse cache (primarily building assessment/triage and basic shoring tools). Recent models have electric hydraulic rescue tools including a cutter, spreader, and ram. Each type of engine is equipped identically, and locations of fixed tools are templated and installed during manufacturing, with all ancillary equipment provided by the OEM.”
Boring mentions that fire departments within California regularly purchase tag-on units, as do primarily western states’ departments. With the most recent (third) update of the Model 18, it has drawn quite a bit of attention across the nation.” Cal/OES calls a Type 1 engine its Model 18.
I simply describe Cal/OES requirements as follows: “Here’s a fire truck with all the ancillary equipment to carry on it. You can use as we prescribe, and you must respond mutual aid anywhere and whenever we call you.” [Cal/OES is a state agency separate from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), which is the actual fire department of the California Natural Resources Agency.]
NFPA 1901
I don’t believe America is ready for a nationalized fire service with standardized apparatus to be used throughout the country, nor is it ready for standardized ancillary equipment requirements—regardless of if they are described as minimums. If a nationalized fire service is going to mandate apparatus and the equipment to be carried, then let the nationalized fire service pay for it. If a fire department doesn’t like or want a standardized apparatus with mandatory equipment, it can “spec and buy its own.” Will some standardized apparatus work? Sure, they will—within parameters. Will all the rank and file like it? Of course not.
Despite the good intent of NFPA 1901, I believe it overreaches when mandating ancillary equipment. It doesn’t seem “appropriate” that 30 unelected members of a committee chosen by an unelected NFPA hierarchy can dictate the types and quantity of ancillary equipment that every fire truck in the United States must carry.
Let NFPA 1901 describe a safe vehicle to transport personnel and equipment to the scene of an emergency. Each fire department should decide for itself what equipment is necessary to mitigate emergencies in its individual areas of responsibility.
ENDNOTES:
2. https://firebrigadesofsurreypreservationtrust.webs.com/ww2nationalfireservice.htm.
3. https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/british-fire-service-not-nationalized/.
4. https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/nationalized-fire-service-terminated-in-great-britain/.
BILL ADAMS is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board, a former fire apparatus salesman, and a past chief of the East Rochester (NY) Fire Department. He has 50 years of experience in the volunteer fire service.
Starting Point for Outfitting Rigs
Ricky Riley
The equipment standard in NFPA 1901 provides a stable and basic cache of equipment that should be carried on a number of types of apparatus covered in the standard: Pumper Fire Apparatus, Initial Attack Fire Apparatus, Mobile Water Supply Fire Apparatus, Aerial Fire Apparatus, Quint Fire Apparatus, Special Service Apparatus, and Mobile Foam Fire Apparatus. Each type has an equipment list that helps provide the basic service that each unit should be able to provide. It seems simplistic and should go without saying that this equipment should be carried. It certainly provides a framework for departments to start outfitting their apparatus for the work that is expected of each type of rig.
With the exception of a number of major cities and jurisdictions, most areas are becoming reliant on robust mutual-aid systems. These systems can allow for closest unit response and for resources to be provided without a department feeling the need to purchase and staff all types of apparatus from its own jurisdiction. In these systems, there needs to be not only an NFPA standard expectation but also a regional expectation of a standard of equipment.
The NFPA standard does not take into account the adaptors and appliances needed to support the geographic area’s needs. Let’s go back to the Great Baltimore Fire of 1904 where numerous mutual-aid units were called for by Chief Engineer George Horton within the first hours of the conflagration. As units arrived from Washington, DC, they could not hook up to the hydrants in Baltimore because of incompatible threads. This could happen today if mutual-aid units are called to assist the Baltimore Fire Department. Most departments in that area have made it a standard to carry the correct adaptor for the city as a part of their equipment cache. While this is not a part of the standard NFPA equipment, it is necessary for companies to carry that adaptor. This is not the only adaptor they need to carry to be able to hook up to numerous other jurisdictions’ hydrant systems. So even if the DC Steamer and Hose Wagon had the NFPA 1901 listed equipment back in 1904, it would not have helped the fireground.
While I have no issue with the equipment standard, it certainly begs the question, “Who is actually complying with the standard and who oversees that standard for any particular department or organization?” Obviously, the authority having jurisdiction has the say if it is going to follow 1901. But does every unit that comes into your response area on mutual aid or automatic aid meet the standard for 1901? And what happens if it does not meet the standard? Does the NFPA police stop the unit from operating on the fire scene?
I have to agree with my friend Bill Adams and say that firefighting is based on a geographical style or need—depending on your building stock, staffing, water supply, and a host of other factors. So does the 1901 equipment list meet the needs of every fire department in the country? Probably not, would be my answer, because it is certainly interesting to look into compartments as we get to visit fire departments around the country and see the vast amounts or very minimal amounts of equipment carried on apparatus. To us in our area, it is insulting to see a ladder truck with 1901 standard ladders only and not see the rig loaded to the gills with every type of ladder and length (we won’t even get into if that ladder truck has a pump and tank on it). But that 1901 standard for ladders does not play or work in our area just because of the amount and the need to throw multiple ground ladders at our building stock. While we think that this should be the same across the country, it is not. So, like Bill, I say that a standard equipment list should be based on your area.
I can get behind the standardized equipment listed in NFPA and that it provides at least the base equipment—hose, nozzles, ladders, etc.—to support functions on the fireground and will assist departments that may not have a defined standard or assessment of their firefighting needs, giving them a basis from which to start. To most departments, this is bare bones equipment, and most of them carry way above the standard complement. Does the list need to be brushed up every once in a while? Well, yes, just like the entire 1901 standard needs to be refreshed to ensure relevance with today’s apparatus and fires.
Yes, I am on both sides of the fence on this topic, but it would matter, depending on the needs of the leadership of any organization, to decide what is minimum equipment. But in the absence of these lists locally, this 1901 standard certainly can help departments get a good starting point for outfitting their rigs.
RICKY RILEY is the president of Traditions Training, LLC. He previously served as the operations chief for Clearwater (FL) Fire & Rescue and as a firefighter for Fairfax County (VA) Fire & Rescue. He also is a firefighter with the Kentland (MD) Volunteer Fire Department and a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board.
