<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Syracuse Fire Department 1973-2013
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?
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?
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?
As originally initiated, the duties of the Squad Company were (1) to advance a line above the fire, the initial attack line and its backup already having been deployed by the engine companies, and (2) Vertical vent. Squad 1 and 2 responded 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
During the 1970s, the idea of "Automated Handline Control" became quite popular in the fire service. More than one manufacturer offered such a system, ours was pretty much custom-built with assistance from Fire Research Corporation. The SFD Training Division even hired a full-time engineer to assemble and service the system, which, as you remembered, included four color-coded handsets (one for each crosslay), and radio-controlled, motor-driven valves on those crosslays. The idea was that the pipe man could just press a button and "send the water" whenever he or she wanted. There was also the provision to remotely shut the line down, plus a "panic button" that activated a visual and audible alarm at the engine. While the system did work (surprisingly well, actually) it was not popular with the troops, who disliked one more thing to carry and who never fully trusted the system to work reliably and quickly when needed. The handsets did NOT control engine speed or pump pressure, these functions were maintained at the pump panel by the driver via an Automatic Governor that was part of the system. Each SFD engine had to have its own four handsets (and radio frequencies), and at that time we had 12 engines so that's 48 different handsets and frequencies - and obviously you didn't want to confuse 'your" handsets with another company's. While the idea did have some merits and the system did function, in the end it represented a very complicated and maintenance-intensive liability rather than an asset. It was abandoned by 1980, although the Automatic Governor function was retained.
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
If you have anything else from Syracuse, Ian, please don't hesitate to post them! Great to see rigs from that era! Thank you!
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;">(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;">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;">(3) What was the reason for the Squrt option? Strictly for elevated master stream, or were there other factors?
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;">(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;">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;">(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;">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;">Syracuse Fire Department 1973-2013
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: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
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 $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Regarding the Federal Q's - It's awfully hard to justify spending thousands of taxpayer dollars for what is really not much more than a glorified starter motor. Further, in city traffic everyone routinely ignores sirens of any kind - mechanical, electronic or both. Now, having said that, I personally happen to like them so when I was able to "sneak them through" I included them. When I couldn't, I didn't. Really no more complicated than that . . . as usual, it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$.
I totally understand. I love a mechanical siren and most times leave the electronic turned off. However I would much rather have a fire ground efficient machine for an aggressive fire attack than the extra bells whistles and chrome.
The quality of the Federal Siren had gone way down in my own opnion. We have talked about moving old higher quality ones to newer machines. I have also been throwing around the idea of B&M super chief sirens, completely made in the USA and better quality.
Quote:Any plan to replace the 135 ladder by a new E-One 137?
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.
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.
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.
08-09-2015, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015, 03:47 PM by fyreline.)
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
Rick,
The Rescue 1 Company Captain at that time was convinced that a "High-Reach Ladder" could serve a useful purpose as an additional piece for his company. At that time, the staffing for the Rescue Company was six personnel. It was lobbied that adding the Rescue Truck, as the aerial was designated, would necessitate the addition of a seventh man. There are some who believe that the addition of the rescue Aerial to the company was mainly a way to pick up an additional man . . . and it did accomplish that, however it makes little sense to purchase and equip such a costly vehicle for only that purpose. Originally an existing 1968 100' Seagrave straight stick was put into service, replaced by a newer, very similar 1972 unit a few years later. In 1985 the 135' Emergency-One unit was purchased for the Rescue Truck. When taken on alarms by the Rescue Company, it was due on a number of high-value, high-risk buildings such as Syracuse University dormitories, High-rise apartments, hotels and hospitals - or any other time the Rescue Company officer thought it might be useful. It was manned by two Rescue Company personnel. This unit did (and does) serve a useful purpose, although when staffing reductions and company closings occurred a few years back, the duties of the Rescue Truck - now renamed Ladder 1 - devolved to the Squad company. At that time, the Rescue Company saw their manpower reduced from 7 back to 6. As an additional piece for the current 4-man Squad, two personnel are assigned to bring it to the alarm and position it. It can be set up and operated by them, or by personnel from other companies if necessary. Hope this is helpful.
Thank you for the detailed answers. As I said I've only visited the city on a few occasions, trips to the university, relatives in the area, and a few trips to the Saulsbury facility but each trip ALWAYS included a stop at a station or two and the hospitality shown by the members was always top notch.
11-07-2016, 07:32 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2016, 07:32 PM by fyreline.)
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!
The 2014 unit previously delivered for Truck 8 did not have it, either. Strictly a budgetary move, but one which Sutphen was happy to make. It was always problematic and expensive for them to provide, and an item they were more than willing to bargain away in favor of other equipment and/or items.
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Twitter