By Bill Adams
Morning coffee at the fire station with the Raisin Squad turned into another donnybrook when the topic of staffing (known as manpower years ago) came up. Bear in mind, the last time most of these bellyachers rode on a fire truck was during vacation with their grandkids on Main Street at Walt Disney World. However, being seasoned citizens and self-professed experts of the fire service, we were obligated to beat the topic to death. We argued about the benefits of career and combination departments as well as automatic mutual assistance and retaining volunteers in getting enough folks to man the apparatus.
I mistakenly said life might be easier for the limited number of people riding the load if fire trucks were smaller and easier to work off of. They jumped all over me: “What, like mini-pumpers? That’s stupid. They don’t work. Most people around here that tried them got rid of them. You oughta know – you used to sell them.” I said yes but it was a long time ago and times have changed. They didn’t care. In attempting to save face, the next morning I stupidly said perhaps midi-pumpers would fit the bill. It was another mistake: “You lose your mind overnight? Don’t you remember you sold them too? They ain’t used anymore either.” I went home.
The pros and cons of mini-pumpers and midi-pumpers ought to be revisited. Mini-pumpers have been around for 50 years. Although not the name itself, the midi-pumper concept was conceived well before World War II. Today, both are being “reintroduced” by many manufacturers (OEMs) in multiple configurations. Some think they’re the next best thing since apple pie, sunshine, fresh air and sliced bread. They just might be right.
High school encouraged us to read history so we didn’t repeat mistakes made in the past. Consequently, this column will look at past and present mini-pumpers and midi-pumpers from an unbiassed – albeit cantankerous – viewpoint without input or influence from the OEMs. A few retired white hairs from the apparatus industry were consulted as well as some equally seasoned former users. Old people tend to wander, so bear with me.
What is it?
Despite the term midi-pumper being used for 30-plus years, it is an apparatus or theory not formally defined. Some fire departments, dealers and OEMs attempt to. The existing National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus and its upcoming replacement NFPA 1900 Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles, Automotive Fire Apparatus, Wildland Fire Apparatus, and Automotive Ambulances make no mention of a midi-pumper. NFPA 1901 defines Pumper Fire Apparatus in Chapter 5 and Initial Attack Fire Apparatus in Chapter 6 by capabilities – not size. Some white hairs call Chapter 5 compliant rigs full-size pumpers. Most old-timers can’t agree what to call Chapter 6 compliant apparatus.
It is bewildering when fire departments’ purchasing specifications specify a midi-pumper when they can’t define what it is. It is equally befuddling when OEMs submit proposals for one and post sureties (bid bonds and performance bonds) for something they too can’t describe. The term midi-pumper is like the term Class A pumper. Neither can really be defined but everyone – in their own minds – knows what they mean.
Compounding the issue, purchasers and OEMs might refer to some of the apparatus defined in the soon-to-be former NFPA 1906 Standard for Wildland Fire Apparatus as midi-pumpers. Are apparatus advertised as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) called midi-pumpers or are they full-size pumpers? And last but not least, could any of the apparatus recognized as a Type 1 or Type 2 Structural Fire Engine by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group and the United States Forest Service be called a midi-pumper? Beats me.
One major rescue truck manufacturer’s website defines light, medium and heavy-duty rescue trucks by their gross vehicle weight rating. It is an excellent idea and I will plagiarize it for my definition of a midi-pumper. My personal interpretation of a midi-pumper is: Any NFPA 1901 Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 compliant fire apparatus that with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 26,000-pounds and 35,000-pounds. Be my guest if you can come up with a better definition.
I would have liked to take it one step further and define both requiring a seating capacity for four firefighters which I believe is the bare minimum for an initial attack on structure fires. However, it would be discriminating against departments that have firefighters respond directly to the scene.
Mini-Pumpers
In the 1970s, the mini-pumper craze hit the American fire service. This writer addressed it eight years ago: (https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/mini-pumpers-part-1-how-well-do-they-really-work/) and (https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/mini-pumpers-part-2-today-and-the-future/). Alan Petrillo did most recently (https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/magazine/new-mini-pumpers-quick-attacks-fill-multiple-roles-for-fire-departments/). Petrillo’s article used the term Quick Attack and one of the OEMs he referenced in it used the term Tactical Pumper. The term attack was used to describe midi-pumpers in the late 1970s (photo 1).
In the movie Shawshank Redemption, when Andy Dufresne escaped from the prison the warden exclaimed, “This is a conspiracy and everyone’s it on it.” If the OEMs are conspiring in using names just to confuse us old people, its working. On the light side, one fire department that used midi-pumpers called them Fast Attack Rescue Trucks. You can guess what the troops called them.
Early Mini-Pumper Limitations
The following are personal opinions not reflective of any OEM or particular apparatus. Early mini-pumpers had limited pumping and carrying capacities due to their limited GVWR and engine performance. Mini-pumpers were incapable of replacing full-size NFPA 1901 Chapter 5 pumpers. Many departments attempted to do so. The majority failed. The early rigs featured two-door cabs with enough room on the back step for a couple more firefighters. Some OEMs claimed two-door cabs could hold three firefighters – obviously not of my size wearing full rubber goods (turnout gear).
Addressing the major drawback of limited water capacity, OEMs began marketing what some called midi-pumpers (photo above). They were larger than the two-door mini-pumper and smaller than a full-size pumper. It was a stop gap measure. For unknown reasons, most pump capacities remained around 250 gallons-per-minute (gpm). Some OEMs advertised them as 450 gpm – albeit only from a pressurized water source.
When “riding the rear step” was eliminated, 50 percent of the staffing was lost. The immediate reaction was to go to four-door cabs on both types. Unfortunately, the additional weight of four-door cabs reduced the “usable” carrying capacity of the apparatus and increased the wheelbase. What the fire service could have ended up with was a mini or midi that was almost as long as some full-size pumpers; was close in overall width (OAW); and probably had a smaller tank, smaller capacity pump, and possibly fewer SCBA seating positions. But they cost less than full-size pumpers – “Let’s buy a couple of them.”
***
This discussion will be continued. The white hairs have some varied opinions about departments that ran with mini-pumpers and midi-pumpers that kept them as well as some that discontinued using them. Topics seldom mentioned that should be addressed are staffing, run cards (assignments), operational realities and a real biggie – apparatus overloading.
