Quints are majority of Aerial builds says manufacturer

Quints are a sensible platform for smaller departments with fewer crews and tighter budgets. There's plenty that could be said about being the Jack of all trades, but the master of none when it comes to quints, but having a quint in many cases means that departments can cut down the overall number of apparatus in their house. This saves in maintenance and upkeep and can result in better staffing of the remaining rigs in personnel-limited departments.
 
The biggest city in my area, Cleveland, has gone to quints on all their truck companies. No closure of companies or reduction in manpower just easier for them. They run into situations where the truck ends up by themselves for awhile and are able to start suppression if need be. Same goes for MVAs for them. My department, suburb, we run our quint as a truck with a jump crew, but everything in the building is a jump crew.
 
AYoung said:
The biggest city in my area, Cleveland, has gone to quints on all their truck companies. No closure of companies or reduction in manpower just easier for them. They run into situations where the truck ends up by themselves for awhile and are able to start suppression if need be. Same goes for MVAs for them. My department, suburb, we run our quint as a truck with a jump crew, but everything in the building is a jump crew.
Click to expand...
Is a jump crew the same as cross staffing?
 
Does the FDNY (or any other department) have any statistics on how often an aerial ladder is raised at a structural fire? Decades ago I seem to remember the number 8%.
 
entropychaser said:
Thanks. To clarify the denominator then; how many structural fires does the average FDNY ladder operate at a year where the aerial/tower is used?
Click to expand...
any fire which a 10-75 is transmitted. as that is a hard thing to figure out as the runs and workers compile all all hands and greater and 10-75's aren't included in that if i had to guess the average is probably 50-60 times a year
 
airbusboeing said:
any fire which a 10-75 is transmitted. as that is a hard thing to figure out as the runs and workers compile all all hands and greater and 10-75's aren't included in that if i had to guess the average is probably 50-60 times a year
Click to expand...
I completely agree and had already done the cocktail napkin calculation (like the engineers who designed the B-52).

In 2023 FDNY had 23,487 structural fires (?) but 2057 serious (all-hands or greater) fires.

Assume two aerials deployed per fire and 120 aerial devices available:

The average use per aerial is 34 times/ year or once every 10.7 days per aerial

Over a ten year lifespan this would result in 340 uses/aerial

So, roughly, the taxpayers would spend $1-2,000/use or $4,000 in capital costs alone for every serious fire- likely a small portion of the total cost

Worth it?....probably. But remember that FDNY aerial use is an outlier.

Consider a small department with the same rig (without the volume purchase discount) who go to a handful of serious fires a year. Suddenly, the capital costs go to $10-20 or $50,000 per use. Worth it?
 
entropychaser said:
I completely agree and had already done the cocktail napkin calculation (like the engineers who designed the B-52).

In 2023 FDNY had 23,487 structural fires (?) but 2057 serious (all-hands or greater) fires.

Assume two aerials deployed per fire and 120 aerial devices available:

The average use per aerial is 34 times/ year or once every 10.7 days per aerial

Over a ten year lifespan this would result in 340 uses/aerial

So, roughly, the taxpayers would spend $1-2,000/use or $4,000 in capital costs alone for every serious fire- likely a small portion of the total cost

Worth it?....probably. But remember that FDNY aerial use is an outlier.

Consider a small department with the same rig (without the volume purchase discount) who go to a handful of serious fires a year. Suddenly, the capital costs go to $10-20 or $50,000 per use. Worth it?
Click to expand...
I’ll completely agree with you. Between my dept and 4 other surrounding depts, we have a total of 4 aerials over 6 stations. For the amount of use that they get it’s not worth it. We could probably drop one and still be just fine for their lack of use. I can’t remember the last fire that the stick or bucket was unbedded that wasn’t a defensive master stream operation.
 
One more thing that make all aerials less cost effective is;

Most buildings are one story

Most fires are on the first story

You can thank Benford's Law for this (which you need to keep in mind when you fill out your lottery numbers)!

Mathematics is everything
 
entropychaser said:
I completely agree and had already done the cocktail napkin calculation (like the engineers who designed the B-52).

In 2023 FDNY had 23,487 structural fires (?) but 2057 serious (all-hands or greater) fires.

Assume two aerials deployed per fire and 120 aerial devices available:

The average use per aerial is 34 times/ year or once every 10.7 days per aerial

Over a ten year lifespan this would result in 340 uses/aerial

So, roughly, the taxpayers would spend $1-2,000/use or $4,000 in capital costs alone for every serious fire- likely a small portion of the total cost

Worth it?....probably. But remember that FDNY aerial use is an outlier.

Consider a small department with the same rig (without the volume purchase discount) who go to a handful of serious fires a year. Suddenly, the capital costs go to $10-20 or $50,000 per use. Worth it?
Click to expand...
Great engineering estimate.
Cost effectiveness as measured by purchase cost divided by number of times used is just one method of determining value. The easiest way to make aerials more cost effective by this approach is to have more fires.
Many devices have a specific, critical utility. Some of the most valuable are expensive to provide and maintain, yet hopefully are never used or at most used only once. Consider lifeboats, airbags, or fire sprinklers. How many ARFF rigs never respond to an actual crash fire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top