Quote: 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">David B. Reeves

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Deputy Chief (Retired)

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Syracuse Fire Department 1973-2013

Quote: 

Chief, thanks as always for the detailed answers. I have one question, what were the roles of Squad 1 and 2 in the era pictured? I know Squad 1 now is the "roof" company, but what did they do as an engine? And did Squad 1 & 2 run together?

Quote:Here is a shot of Rescue 1 taken in August 1977 when a few of us bunked in as guests of the SFD.

 

Chief, I recall at the time of our visit the SFD was testing remote control on one or more of Hendrickson-Pierce Telesqurt engines.  We had a demo of it.   I recall the officer had what looked a like a portable radio with buttons to increase or decrease engine speed and hence pump pressure.  I also recall the discharge valves had remote control with servo-motors and were controlled from the hand held device.  I also vaguely remember the 1.75 in. discharges were color coded and each had its respective remote control hand held device.  Is my memory failing me on some of the details?  How long did Chief Hanlon's experiment last and was it on all the engines?

 

Thanks

 

Ian Stronach

Montreal, Quebec 

 

 

Quote:Here is a shot of Rescue 1 taken in August 1977 when a few of us bunked in as guests of the SFD.

 

Chief, I recall at the time of our visit the SFD was testing remote control on one or more of Hendrickson-Pierce Telesqurt engines.  We had a demo of it.   I recall the officer had what looked a like a portable radio with buttons to increase or decrease engine speed and hence pump pressure.  I also recall the discharge valves had remote control with servo-motors and were controlled from the hand held device.  I also vaguely remember the 1.75 in. discharges were color coded and each had its respective remote control hand held device.  Is my memory failing me on some of the details?  How long did Chief Hanlon's experiment last and was it on all the engines?

 

Thanks

 

Ian Stronach

Montreal, Quebec 

 

 

Quote:I'll attempt to answer the questions in the order you asked them:

 

(1) What was the original concept of the Engine and Mini combination? 

 

Answer: When the Syracuse Fire Department began its massive Reorganization Plan in the early 1970's, alarm data showed us that nearly 65% of the alarms received could have been handled by two personnel in a smaller, "Squad 51"-style vehicle. Bear in mind that at that point in time, the TV show "Emergency!" was not yet on the air, and the SFD was not yet running EMS alarms. That percentage breakdown proved to be true, and as EMS assumed more and more importance, the value of the smaller second piece was even more justified. On structure fire assignments, the mini responded with just one firefighter while the other three led with the engine. As it was discovered in later years that the minis did little or no actual firefighting at all, the pump and tank were deleted and they became strictly EMS first response units. When this change took place, the first-due engine on structure fire assignments stopped even taking it on the alarm, all four personnel riding the engine and leaving the mini in quarters. 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">(2) Weren't the engines at one time called Maxi's or am I thinking of a different department?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Answer: Syracuse's two-piece engine company procedure was called the Mini-Maxi Concept in many contemporary fire service publications, but the engines have never been marked or dispatched as "Maxis". We have always just called them engines.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">(3) What was the reason for the Squrt option? Strictly for elevated master stream, or were there other factors?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

Answer: It was determined that Syracuse's abundant and prolific water supply system (Over 6000 hydrants, all 80 lbs. or better and one of the reasons for our ISO Class 1 rating) could easily supply more elevated master streams than our truck companies could provide. Added to that, our typical Syracuse "job" is a deuce-and-a-half wood frame, balloon-construction house with asphalt shingles ("gasoline siding") and minimum setback and separation between houses. Although our initial tactics have always been - and continue to be - multiple 1.75" handlines quickly deployed and aggressively advanced, the capability of multiple elevated master streams is always a nice tool for the fireground commander to have in his box. At house fires it is highly effective if and when necessary, and at multiple alarm fires it is imperative and leads to faster, safer and more efficient conclusions.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">(4) I think the answer for the distinctive warning lights below the windshield/on the fenders is pretty self explanatory, but was there anything that lead to the determination to place them there? a specific incident or something similar?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Answer: We actually originated these at Engine 7 when I was stationed there. E7 covered the high-density, high-traffic Syracuse University area and three of the city's major hospitals. We had noticed that on alarms, the cars simply didn't see our rooftop mounting lights - they were in effect shooting right over the heads of the traffic directly in front of us. Our thought was that putting a couple of big old-fashioned rotating lights (this was before light bars came into common use) down below the cab windshield would tend to get them noticed better by the cars in front of us - and it worked very well, in addition to providing what amounted to early intersection lights. No, there was no one particular incident that prompted their use.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">(5) Why have the Aerials remained Sutphens while the Engines have changed manufacturers over the years?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Answer: When the Reorganization Plan was envisioned, the use of tower ladders was still relatively new and we looked at everything on the market. We had a tragic experience with an articulating-boom Snorkel in 1971, and Chief Tom Hanlon vowed that there would be no more articulating=boom apparatus on the SFD under his watch - and there have been none to this day. The Sutphen tower provided the right combination of reach, water flow, and available pump & tank capacity to meet our needs ad we have developed an extremely close and mutually beneficial relationship with Sutphen over the years. The reason we have such a mixed bag of engine makes is due to the competitive bid process, and the fact that Tom Sutphen would not build a rear-mounted anything - which put them out of the running for our TeleSqurt engines. During a couple of lean budget years in 2010-2011 we were unable to afford booms on any new engines, and we did acquire three non-boom equipped Sutphen engines (we have since gone back to booms on subsequent engines). We do not go to competitive bid for our tower ladders - we must receive a Waiver of Competitive Bid from the City Council, and in effect create legislation to buy each new tower. This always required me to testify before the council to justify the purchase to their satisfaction - something I was always able to successfully do. The short answer is that Sutphens work exceptionally well for us, our Truck Companies have used them exclusively for over 40 years, and we have an excellent relationship with them for parts, service and support.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Hope this information is helpful.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">David B. Reeves

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Deputy Chief (Retired)

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Syracuse Fire Department 1973-2013

Quote:Chief, Thank you it was extremely informative explanation. I really enjoyed reading it. I was curious why did SFD stop buying mechanical sirens in the 1970's-80's? I noticed the 2010-2011 Sutphen's had Q's but the newer KME's don't. Any reason for getting away from them again? Thanks in advance. Rick 

Quote: 

Regarding the Federal Q's - It's awfully hard to justify spending thousands of taxpayer dollars for what is really not much more than a glorified starter motor. Further, in city traffic everyone routinely ignores sirens of any kind - mechanical, electronic or both. Now, having said that, I personally happen to like them so when I was able to "sneak them through" I included them. When I couldn't, I didn't. Really no more complicated than that . . . as usual, it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$.

Quote:Any plan to replace the 135 ladder by a new E-One 137?

Quote: 

That will, of course, be up to the current Chief of Fire. I did make a recommendation upon my retirement . . . as long as it continues to pass its certification every year, I would keep it in the fleet. As a fire ground commander, it's always another nice tool to have in your box. I used it a few times, but very few. It would be extremely difficult to justify the expense of a new replacement (at well over a million dollars) for a vehicle that will be very rarely used, versus two engines for the same cost that would be used every single day. So, my final recommendation was to keep and maintain it as long as it passes certification, and the first time it doesn't, send it down the road and do not replace it. Even a complete rebuild, as Oklahoma City did to theirs, would be prohibitively expensive - although I did look into doing that. Sometimes budgetary constraints prevent you from doing everything you would like to do, but we all have to play the hand we are dealt. That's part of management.

Quote:Chief,

 

Other than the ability to reach great heights for rescue and or fly pipe. What was the original reasoning for purchasing Rescue Aerial? I was always impressed it was assigned as an extra piece to the rescue company. Also what was the standard running assignment for Rescue Aerial. Thanks in advance I really enjoy learning about SFD.

 

Respectfully,

Rick  

Quote:Chief, I noticed that the new Ladder 5 doesn't have a mini bar on the front, is the department going away from it, do you know?

 

Trav!