BY MICHAEL HUBER

Anyone who has been around a while and has attended conferences, showcases, and industry meetings knows that the fire service/emergency medical service (EMS) always has new gizmos and gadgets.

There is never a shortage of new great ideas. Everyone, both end users and fleet managers, wants the latest and greatest—I know I do! There is always competition between departments for who has the newest innovations.

As far as apparatus, the manufacturers are coming out with new items every month. Here are just a few:

• Electric fire trucks.
• Hybrid fire trucks.
• Idle reduction.
• Telematics.
• GPS analytics.
• Driver behavior monitoring.
• 360-degree camera systems.
• Collision avoidance.
• Blind spot monitoring.
• Emergency braking.
• Data recorders.

All these items are certainly useful and provide value. If you use safety as a crutch, as a lot of people do, these items would be mandatory, not simply “nice-to-haves.”

Unfortunately, the reality is much different. The cost of apparatus is constantly rising because of inflation, supply line disruptions, labor costs, and the never-ending stringent emission standards. On top of the already insane prices, the cost to add any of the above listed items to the acquisition puts the price tag way above what the average jurisdiction or volunteer company is willing or able to pay.

When I first started driving, features like antilock brakes, stability control, and backup cameras did not exist. Now, I can’t imagine being without these items that are pretty much standard equipment. No one will argue that they are not useful tools. Many of the new emerging items will eventually become standard equipment also.

When you begin adding advanced driver assistance items, the cost quickly escalates, adding tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to the price of new apparatus. And following the automotive industry example, most of these items come with a monthly or annual subscription cost. This too can add recurring costs to an already strapped budget.

This creates a dilemma for those responsible for specifications and acquisition. How do you incorporate these items, keeping in mind safety and efficiency? Of course, you must consider the greatest return on investment and remain fiscally responsible.

Technology should solve a problem, not simply add complexity to the apparatus. Before finalizing specifications and adding to the cost, think about the following questions:

• Does this make it safer for the crew and civilians?
• Will it reduce maintenance costs?
• Is it proven in the industry? There is no need to be a tester for unproven technology.
• Can our staff be trained to use it?
• What are the long-term costs?
• Is the benefit significant to justify the cost?
• Does this make financial and operational sense?

The cost of these items needs to be further evaluated based on historical data. Look at past accidents and the cost of each one—not only the cost to repair the units but the cost in terms of civilian property, workers’ compensation claims, overtime to backfill injured personnel, and legal expenses, just to name a few. There are also indirect costs such as out-of-service time, public perception, and the administrative investigations that will no doubt surface.

Anyone who has ever been involved in accident litigation knows that one of the first things an attorney or risk manager will ask is whether reasonable safety measures were taken during the acquisition. As this advanced driver technology becomes more common, departments may find themselves in a position to have to explain why they chose not to include certain features that could have prevented the incident.

There is no universal correct answer, because every department operates differently and is under different financial constraints. A large metropolitan department may have more financial resources to afford these items, but it may have a quicker turnover of apparatus based on miles and run volume. Some departments might have to choose between new technology and new loose equipment or hose.

Apparatus committees must have foresight and look beyond the excitement of the newest gadgets and technology to make decisions that will serve their departments for the next 10 to 20 years. Sometimes simpler is better and easier. The bottom line is that firefighting and EMS units are expensive, and the goal should be to build the safest, most reliable, and most effective units that the department can afford. The challenge is finding the balance between innovation and practicality.

MICHAEL HUBER is a fire apparatus driver/operator and fire apparatus fleet manager for the Baltimore County (MD) Fire Department.