The Discovery Channel's "Dirty Jobs" show made a segment involving the SFFD's ladder construction/maintenance crew. In it, they explained that wooden ladders are cheaper to maintain than aluminum ones and I think also discount fiberglass ladders as well.
It's worth a watch if one is interested in this topic.
LOL at SFFD giving any shits about costs. This is the same department that power grabbed emergency medical response away from dedicated paramedics in ambulances. Responding in full ladder trucks to take care of drunk homeless people...yeah, they do that, costing millions every year in added expenses and road repairs. But good for them for saving a few bucks on ladders, that must make a huge difference.
This is part of a first responder program, occasionally saving lives. Plenty of cities across the US do this sort of thing.
If you have an emergency - especially a medical one - whoever is closest is the right person to respond, be it fire department, ambulance, or police. 3 to 10 minutes in an emergency can make a huge difference. Like it or not, a drunk homeless person is generally a health and/or safety issue. Coming in trucks that they would usually drive also means that if there happens to be a fire call while they are out helping someone with possible first aid, they can leave from the scene, keeping more people safe. For auto accidents, sometimes the fire truck is one of the better things to have at the scene for visibility purposes.
I would also like to add that many - but not all - fire departments also drive ambulances.
Does it cost money? Sure. But if it helps folks, I'm for it. There are other options, but I'm not convinced they will cost less money (more ambulances of different sorts, more manpower for first responders positioned in places across cities, and so on... all have their costs).
I'd fully recommend actually looking into the reasons for some of this, and what other options are for similar outcomes.
A lady at a bar passed out for a few seconds last week, and they sent out a full ladder truck, and ambulance, and four sheriff cars, even though she had resumed consciousness before the dispatcher was done gathering info. I would think they could have coordinated via radio and picked one vehicle to show up. A couple of the responders even seemed to be annoyed that she was conscious when they got there. That didn't seem very efficient to me.
You're not wrong, but it's more that they are in a position to help and the city doesn't seem to want to have another organization deal with the homeless. They're not exactly gunning for the role of taking care of the homeless.
According to , the city gets 40-50 people off the streets every week, but there are 100-150 new homeless people each week. So at that simple numbers game, the homelessness problem is not yet being solved.
You can see the budget at . Most of the budget goes to Supportive Housing, ie, paying for housing for people to keep them off the street.
>There's a city-specific reason why San Francisco has stuck with wood rather than swap over to metals, and the answer lies in looking up. The high-voltage cables and wires that guide the city's (oft-maligned) public transport system Muni, and trolley cars crisscross above nearly every street, mean that ladders made of conductive elements are generally just too dangerous to use.
>"I think there's a lot of fire departments that went aluminum and wish they could go back to wood but it's too expensive," Braun says. "There's only two ladders manufacturers in the states—and we're one of 'em. We only make our own ladders and can barely even keep up with what we have."
At high voltages the electricity may be able to arc between the steps. Electricity will do some pretty incredible things at high voltages. Check out this video of some idiots turning a powerline into a Jacob's ladder.
At the voltage needed to arc between aluminum steps you've got a lot bigger problems than worrying about your ladder. A quick search shows overhead trolley cables deliver 600V DC. Not exactly "turning air to plasma" level there. The rest of the overhead cables firefighters should encounter are the same normal residential 34kV lines you see everywhere (data tables show an air arc distance under 2 inches) unless I'm missing something.
I've got nothing but praise and admiration for the actual firefighters in SFFD. They do shit for out city that no one else wants to do and should rightfully have the same kind of admiration that FDNY gets.
But for the people running the department, specifically those in those positions in the early aughts (naughties?) who maneuvered to eliminate dedicated paramedics from the city, I've got nothing but hate. I had friends who were part of ambulance crews who were forced to either transition into being full-fledged firefighters or get let go and have to look for work in neighboring cities. None of them wanted to run into burning buildings, so they all left. It was a nonsensical decision to gain political power and ended up increasing costs and negatively impacting a lot of other highly dedicated folks who should receive similar amounts of praise. First responders of all sorts, whether they be police, fire fighters, paramedics or otherwise, are always taking risks to help the rest of us.
I'd hope that New Yorkers would have similar admiration for the folks in ambulances that also put their lives on the line to help their fellow citizens. Now imagine that some fucks at the top of the NYFD decided to fuck over the ambulance personnel in an attempt to gain more political clout while simultaneously wasting a ton of taxpayer money doing nonsensical things like needlessly sending the large 2-driver firetrucks to the scene of medical emergencies. Then how would you feel about NYFD? You'd probably feel the way I do about the SFFD and draw a clear distinction between the men and women who actually put on a uniform and serve their community and the bureaucrats at the top who are wasting our money and destroying our roads.
I don't think its anger. It's just that police and fire departments have garnered this "can do no wrong" mindset to the extent that trying to fix what they actually do wrong (waste money) has turned into a political third rail.
Fewer fires but larger departments , 6-figure trucks driving to fender benders, pension spiking, minimum staffing requirements & huge overtime pay (union-negotiated), etc.
Look, I appreciate what first responders do. I just don't think they're above reproach.
There was that time an _on-duty_ firefighter was drunk driving the rig, hit a motorcyclist and everyone involved tried to cover it up, including fleeing the scene. He didn't get questioned by the police for hours.
Consider the impact of 9/11. Prior to that, FDNY was of course well-liked, but not to the incredible degree it is today. The role they played in the response, and the heavy losses they suffered when the towers fell, resulting in a huge outpouring of grief, support, thanks, etc. It's still going today. Other fire departments perhaps benefit a little from that, but not to same degree as FDNY.
It’s also a function of the job - people don’t hate them because the vast majority of their work is non-confrontational and they don’t pose a risk to citizens (write tickets, arrest people etc) so most people are happy to see them when they arrive somewhere they are needed. Put it another way - I’m willing to guess that a large percentage of people here have had or witnessed a negative interaction with a police officer, and far fewer could say the same of a firefighter or EMT...
I'm a transplant, but in my casual observations living here it seems like SFFD is pretty impressive and worthy of respect. I've seen neighbors call for minor issues, the response time has been very good and the calls taken seriously. It's almost as if they're keeping cultural memory of 1906 alive, i.e. they really don't want widespread fires.
The fire department does have some ambulances, but they still respond to non-fires with fire engines as well. Prior to the unification of services, non-fire medical emergencies were serviced by ambulances and EMTs were not required to be firefighters. Now, all EMTs have to be firefighters. I had friends who lost their jobs when the switchover happened because they didn't want to train as firefighters.
Don't most countries have a separate ambulance/paramedic service for medical emergencies? Certainly in the UK we have fire, police and ambulance as the three emergency services, one (or more) of which will be sent by the dispatcher following a 999 emergency call. I think most commonwealth countries are the same.
Americans seem to take a lot of pride in their fire brigades - their fire engines are still shiny and polished with more traditional signage and the fire fighters still wear helmets with their traditional shape.
In the United Kingdom they wear more simple uniforms and the engines are just a box shape with no bells any more - seems a shame.
Usually it's UK the has more ceremony in these kind of things.
One of the biggest differences between Europe and North America in this regard is that in European cities, emergency vehicles have to be designed to fit a 1000-year-old city in terms of width, turning radius, maximum weight, etc. This leads to a much more compact shape and shorter wheelbase.
In North America streets are designed to fit emergency vehicles. You're not allowed to build a street so narrow that a fire engine couldn't turn around there, for example.
The narrowest street in San Francisco is roughly a regular European street. This is par for the course on most European cities, while San Francisco has very few streets narrower than this (and the average is probably wider, if you look anywhere westwards of Park Presidio where theoretically two way streets are wide enough for traffic to continue flowing in both direction even with double parked trucks.
I would also point out that I'd prefer narrower streets in SF.
Honestly, from quickly looking at some images of UK firefighters, it seems the difference to me is that their equipment is modern, an not just in a design sense. Their helmets look better designed to protect the user and their fire engines look like they weren't purchased in the 70's.
So maybe the difference is that in the UK, they don't have to use old equipment
Maybe I'm not looking at the right pictures, because a quick Google Images search for "uk firefighters" and "us firefighters", I see no functional difference in what they're wearing, and the only difference in the firetrucks is that American firetrucks are massive bricks and UK firetrucks are either a European-style truck that looks basically the same as a US-style truck or are a Ford Transit van with some hoses.
The helmets look exactly the same except the ones in the UK don't have brims on the back.
They keep the engines shiny for multiple reasons. First, what else are you going to make the rookies do? ;-) Actually, keeping them shinny requires someone to pretty much go over every inch of the truck which is also a great time to do an inspection of the truck. Finding out something needs attention while sitting idle in the station is much better than finding out while out on response.
I'm not sure about local funding (I think there's a certain amount of state and county funding as well). I'm sure that differs for each one. They also often staff the fire department with local volunteers. I have a couple uncles that did this for years in a very small town (~600 people). The fire department was mostly used for preventing/stopping wildfires in the surrounding area (which occur fairly often). When I've visited in the past they would give us tours. They had mostly military vehicles which could make it over the terrain (the gama goat was pretty interesting) and a regular engine (which I believe was a hand-me-down from another city). They were proud of what they were doing there to help protect the community.
Most firefighters in the US are volunteer, so not enough pride to pay people to do it.
Having a volunteer fire department does not mean there isn't pride.
In fact, it can be argued the opposite -- Volunteer departments mean the citizens take enough pride in their brigade that they get directly involved in it, rather than farming it out as a civil service.
I think there is a big difference between the pride of individual being a firefighter (many people feel this and are willing to take the job with no pay or benefits even though firefighters are at risk for a whole range of occupational induced diseases) and the pride a community feels for an organization and their willingness to support them.
There are plenty of communities in America that have professional fire departments. Particularly cities where there is actually a tax base to support it. You'll find volunteer fire departments in pretty much any working class town where the manpower is capable and willing but the money is lacking.
Absolutely. Look at Long Island, NY. There are a number of communities with the wealth to transition to professional fire brigades, but the property taxes are already high and the political leanings run conservative.
For most small towns I think its more the fact that a fire is a pretty rare occurrence (a couple call outs a year with a major fire every few years) so its more of a cost/benefit decision - they're willing to add ~5 min to the response time for a rare event in order to deploy $1m+/year to other higher priority areas
In the UK the majority of firefighters are on retainers, and will spend a few hours a week training, but otherwise just rely on pagers. They're paid a few thousand per year plus hourly and callout rates.
Volunteer firemen in the US certainly do get paid, or at least reimbursed. They're not working for free. And places with volunteer fire departments aren't volunteer because there's no pride, they're volunteer because there aren't enough fires to warrant paying people full-time to sit around doing nothing. They're on-call, and they get paid to respond to fires. In the meantime, they go to their normal job that also pays them money.
I think you are overgeneralizing. In the two places I'm familiar with, rural North Carolina and rural Wisconsin, "volunteer firemen" are truly unpaid volunteers. You are right that others are paid for their time, but it's not universal. Here's a Straight Dope thread that talks about the different approaches in some different places: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=658416
Around here, the state government subsidizes volunteer companies for equipment and facilities, and the fire district can bond with public votes that attract fewer voters than school board elections. My dad lives in a town with 250 annual callouts, a $10M firehouse and two $300k fire engines.
In the city that I live in a few miles away with a paid department, the firehouse next door does like 6,000 calls a year with a 2005 truck with 200k miles on it.
I can't think of any reason to acclimatize them this way instead of kiln drying/vaporizing them (depending) to roughly the right moisture content and waiting for 1% change (instead of kiln drying them to 0, or waiting forever for completely green wood)
There are studies going back to the 70's by the forestry service (and others) showing there is no change in mechanical properties of pine/fir from these drying schedules.
(This is not true of a lot of hardwoods, but is true of these softwoods)
Waiting years seems like a pointless waste of time.
"The material they show in the article is massive. Thick, long and heavy. Even if there are kilns big enough, the wood would no longer be straight after a fast kiln drying."
This is not true, depending on timeline.
It's true of the production rate kilns, and as you say, it doesn't matter for construction lumber, which is why they do it.
But assuming 3+ years to dry your 3x3" board, even doing it in a kiln at a 6 month rate (or whatever) would be a vast improvement, and would basically not bow or check. Again, there is actually a vast amount of research on drying schedules vs defects and how to optimize for whatever you want for a given wood species.
As for kiln size, again, solar kilns are quite trivial to build for basically any size or shape, and can easily be temperature controlled for something like this.
(and they could easily build a kiln in the space they have shown in that article)
To whit: I've built a solar kiln in maryland for 30+ ft boards before, and cost of materials was < $1000.
(I used to buy lumber from a guy who was responsible for handling downed trees for some cities in northern virginia, and he used to saw and sell the lumber. He did the nail removal, etc)
"Even if the wood was kiln dried, it would still have to acclimatizate for months or years before it would be at a stable 13% humidity of San Francisco."
Why? You can just stop drying it at 13% (instead of the 7-8% that is normal).
"I bet the expert woodmakers doing this job have very good reasons. Reasons that you haven't thought of..
Seriously, these people are experts. They probably know their job, really, really well."
This is just a random appeal to authority.
If you would like to be constructive, please be constructive.
First, there is one person doing this. Or was. It was Jerry Lee, who recently retired. He did it for 30 years.
In fact, for giggles, i reached out this morning, and Jerry Lee says he is not an expert by any means in any of this. He was just a pattern maker who thought he could be helpful. He had no particular expertise in this when he started, and he would argue he is in fact, not an expert.
When I asked, he said they just didn't need to do it faster.
So it turns out no, they aren't magical experts trained in the artisanal art of ladder making with information passed down from the ages, and no, there are no magical reasons that only the wood cognoscenti have thought of.
They just use the forestry handbook data and info like everyone else!
At the point where one of us literally called up the dude who was doing the work and asked, can we dispense with the message board rhetorical kung-fu and just have the rest of the conversation? Thanks.
Actually, no, it's a very very very well thought out resource that has references to where the research comes from and citations for it's data.
It may come as a surprise, but this really is engineering.
People have been studying wood as an engineering material for a very long time, and there are a large number of published studies on pretty much anything you can think of from drying rates to density to you name it.
If you get a chance to visit a Smokejumper base, I highly recommend it. One of the things you learn is that everyone on the team is required to make all of their own equipment by hand. So all of these highly trained, ex-military guys spend days on end doing nothing but sewing clothes and packing parachutes. The reasons described:
- Cheaper than contracting out everything
- They have a better idea of the exact specifications they need for everything
- It instills a strong culture of self-reliance and trust (anyone has to be able to pack your parachute)
- It fills a lot of offseason downtime
My takeaway is that it makes a lot of sense to in-house your own tools - a lesson from outside of the software industry.
I've spent a couple hours every morning the last eight Tuesdays explaining to a customer that the software that they purchased from us, and installed on their servers, goes down for a few minutes at 1:00 AM because their server team is rebooting those servers to apply updates. Every week, same time, same issue, same cause, same review and root cause analysis demanded. Fixing broken processes in broken companies is 1000 times harder than anything else in software.
It could be the case that nothing is actually broken. I have unfortunately received a number of similar calls on systems that were working exactly as specified. Random nonsense "disasters" can happen a lot in dysfunctional companies.
I would never in a million years, as a developer, give my personal phone number to a client. That's probably why.
I get the same issue where I work. The client states that "everything is broken," but it often turns out that their own servers are down (or sometimes our API guys made a breaking change and I wasn't informed, but that's not common anymore). I find this stuff out when I get to work in the morning, because they certainly aren't calling me directly.
It's actually the opposite way around for me, but I fill a senior role that intersects directly with high-value vendors. I'm basically on-call 24/7 and I am in the office whenever I feel like it or when I need to work on code.
I log my interactions with my supervisor, he will occasionally check with me to follow up but I can fix 99% of what they call me about on my own. If I need help, it's usually just expert knowledge that I can ask around the office for.
But of course other devs have different roles and workflows.
This is a common phenomena, and I'm not sure if there's a general term for it. E.g. people prematurely stop taking antibiotics because they feel better, or people go off their meds because they feel fine, etc.
I'd say this is best described by the concepts from control theory. In this case it really reminds me of bang-bang control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang%E2%80%93bang_control and in particular, the failure state that it can result in when applied in the real world: "depending on the width of the hysteresis gap and inertia in the process, there will be an oscillating error signal around the desired set point value (e.g., temperature), often saw-tooth shaped." In this case, there is a ton of hysteresis and inertia in the process, and by golly, the sawtooth is what you get... more officers this year, more officers next year, more officers after that, maybe it tops out a bit, and then BANG big cut.
It doesn't perfectly apply because technically, the system does not merely have two states, but the failure state is still very reminiscent of what is described here.
As kcorbitt points out in a sibling comment, differential equations are also a very powerful mechanism for understanding these phenomena, even when they are continuously approximating a discrete function like "number of police officers". Unfortunately, the standard treatment of this incredibly practical and important topic in college is terrible, and people come out with no understanding of how important it is to understanding the real world. As a really simple example, anywhere you can find a -dx^2/dt^2 term, you are almost certain to experience oscillations; they can be drowned out but it takes a lot, to put it in intuitive terms. With so many such terms in the world, there's a lot of oscillations that you simply can't avoid. I tend to believe our economy oscillations more than it absolutely has to for various reasons, for instance, but the idea I've sometimes seen proposed that it shouldn't oscillate at all is impractical. Too many terms like that in the world.
It is really painful sometimes to navigate life and witness the complete lack of understanding of control systems shown by the designers of many essential pieces of basic infrastructure from roads and parking all the way up to the banking/financial system.
Another common lack of understanding that is particularly prevalent within middle management is the trade-off between efficiency and resilience, the application of this to the finacial system is discussed at length in .
Also a common pattern in biological ecosystems. Great weather one year leads to lots of fresh grass around, so more rabbits than usual survive to adulthood. An abundance of rabbits leads to more foxes than usual surviving. But the next year the increased fox population over-hunts the rabbits, crashing their population, and the next winter the underfed fox population crashes in turn, allowing more rabbits to survive to adulthood... etc. etc.
It strikes me as some type of attribution error. Not the FAE we all know, but a different or more general one. As in, results are not attributed to the cause.
But in the antibiotics example, it's the other way around. The results are ignored in spite of the cause ("I feel better, therefore I'm done"). That one could also just be regular old ignorance, but that's a boring topic of discussion.
I assume you're getting downvoted because the Red Queen hypothesis actually applies to a scenario where neither wolves nor rabbits change their numbers significantly. Perhaps a better description would be along the lines of: Wolves get better eye sight, so rabbits get better at camouflage, so the wolves get better smell, so rabbits get better at hiding in inaccessible areas, so wolves get thicker coats to dig into the briar patch, etc. This year's model of wolf or rabbit is more fit than last year's model, but is never able to gain a lasting advantage over the wolves.
As the Red Queen said to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
This was me working as an information security analyst. Just waiting for a security incident. Then my manager realized I had a lot of downtime and put me to work doing compliance reports as well, then wondered why when a security incident happened the compliance reports stopped being generated.
Also factor in most of those calls during the morning and evening, follow-up paperwork time, daily equipment checks, and station maintenance. If you cut the timeframe down to 12 hours busy window, that's 90 minutes per call. Throw a good call in there and they stack up. In my experience, a 24 hour shift with 8-10 calls is just about the max to handle before burnout.
I think the low yield strength of aluminum also plays a role here, as one guy mentions. But I’m surprised thermal conductivity didn’t rate a mention.
There was a time when aluminum bikes were new but before the parts likely to bend were replaceable where many a bike owner had to buy a new frame due to misadventure. You can only bend aluminum once, then you’re done. When they started making cogsets with more than six gears they went with axles about half a centimeter wider, and you had a similar conversation. You can have the longer axles but you can’t change your mind after. They have to bend the stays slightly and there is no going back after that (and let me tell you, the mechanic got really quiet when they did the bend. You want to get it just right and every bike and every frame size is different. You pull until you feel the metal just start to give and just after that is your 5mm)
Steel frames could often be rebent. But they’re heavier and they don’t like moisture. And their strength to weight ratio is only about the same as wood. Probably also bad options for firefighters.
The other property of aluminum that is relevant for some uses (but likely not ladders for most uses) is that, unlike steel, it doesn't have a well-defined fatigue limit. Therefore, it can eventually fail after a large number of even relatively small loads that don't visibly deform the material. That's one of the main service limits on airframes.
Do you have any data to detail this? Fiberglass is glass fibers + resin. Decent resin doesn't melt or become weak with normal heat, it just thermally stresses at some point (we're talking > 180C at which point a wood ladder would be on fire). Wood also has issues with heat - it expands, which can cause buckling and cracks. I'm trying to find fiberglass temperature-strength data to figure out why it's not used in fire ladders and am coming up short.
As far as I can tell after some brief googling when I saw this article earlier today: 1. Fiberglass ladders tend to use polyester resin. 2. polyesters tend to have a glass transition temperature (i.e. where the polymer starts to become soft and lose its shape) in the 75 to 125C range.
Wood combustion temperatures are typically about twice that. Also, incidental heat contact can char the surface of the wood and leave it mostly structurally intact.
The choice of resin can be accomodated, using polyamides as a matrix with suitable glass (some low-temperature types might not work), or with carbon fibers, should allow ~400°C/ 670K as a usage-limit. If it were to be coated with e.g. CVD SiO2 or something similar, it could have a pretty high reflectivity in the higher-temeperature thermal radiation range of light (where most of the radiation heat from a fire is in).
The mentioned charring is a very important property in buildings, as solid (hard-)wood pillars have astonishing endurance in a full-scale fire, due to them smoldering slowly from the outside in, compared to e.g. steel framing that quickly softens throughout. One additional factor is evaporative cooling/associated covering with mostly inert water vapor due to the water contained in the wood and the water released from the cellulose fibers upon thermal decompositon.
You can dry wood faster. Lots of woodworkers build little makeshift kilns by stickering the wood inside an enclosure with a fan and, optionally, using the sun or an electric heater. Temperature control, sticker spacing, and proper stacking is key so it takes lots of experience if you don't want to lose too much wood to warping, checking, etc.
And 13% moisture is relatively high. Kiln-dried hardwood for furniture is sold at about 8-10% moisture. Dried construction lumber is usually sold at about 19% moisture--just below the point which inhibits mold growth. Heck, some of the construction-grade lumber at a big box store might already be at 13% just from sitting around for months inside the store. (Though they stack them poorly and this is one reason why the pieces are often so warped.)
I assume that they keep the pieces around for so long simply because they can. If your time horizon is decades, then you lose nothing by simply stacking the wood (without much stickering) and letting it sit. That doesn't take much effort, just patience. And considering how expensive and rare such long, defect-free pieces are, why risk losing pieces? I have no doubt they could dry the pieces faster, but they have better ways to spend their time. Their only immediate responsibility is to keep the years-long pipeline of wood filled.
 On the East Coast with a more humid climate, homebuilders purchase pre-dried lumber for framing. On the West Coast with a much dryer climate, builders traditionally buy wet wood for framing and the wood usually dries to <= 19% by the time they begin finishing the interior. (Wood primarily shrinks tangentially and radially, not longitudinally, so drying framing in place isn't usually an issue. See http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/dimensional-shrin...)
You can also stick them in a room-sized microwave oven operated at rather low frequencies, to get deeper penetration into the wood and dry it from within. If you do that with whole logs, you should be able to cut them to be straight in the dry state.
This takes in the order of days, not years, without damaging the structural integrity by chemical decomposition that starts at relatively low temperatures.
If you are in a hurry, you can also put something like burnt lime in the chamber as that chemically captures the evaporating water without releasing it in these conditions. That way you can keep the humidity under 5% during the process if you spread the lime enough to capture the water as fast as it is driven out of the wood. You need to be careful to not burn the wood, but you should be able to use something from FLIR with some computer vision to check that no lumber overheats. The water also increases the absorption a lot, so this provides feedback that equalizes the humidity, instead of e.g. a runaway heating that would happen if dryer wood absorbs more microwaves.
Kiln drying doesn't produce ready to use lumber for fine woodworking or demanding applications. It's fine for construction material but needs additional seasoning and acclimatization in the environment it's going to be used in if it's to be used for anything else.
Fast drying will also introduce stress and warping to the wood. It would not work when long straight and thick material is needed.
Just use a pipe with conductive plating on the inside and operate it in the 3-digit MHz range as a waveguide. Make sure that the core of the wood has more power than the outside, and that you e.g. move it around lengthwise if you get longitudal resonance in the pipe. Add some desiccant, and make sure the way you couple the energy into the chamber can handle this resonance without frying itself through reflection. Might not need the vacuum, but it should be easy to construct it in a way that it can hold a vacuum of around 10~200 mBar, e.g. with a simple one-stage pump. If you make sure the pump doesn't take in much moisture, there shouldn't be an issue for it.
I believe a toolmaker on a team is still critically important. I have yet to see a team or organization that doesn't have a suite of (often poorly maintained) custom tooling that automates things together or provides functionality critical to the business.
Interestingly the more critical these tools are, the less maintained they will be.
They often fall in the middle of everything, and there is no set team to handle them (“everyone’s responsible”). Then as they’re critical, someone can’t just take half an hour to do a quick fix, it must be reviewed (and no one actively wants to review it, as it’s not trivial and not their job —- cf “everyone’s responsible —-). Plus anyone succesfully fixing them will be flagged as a potential maintainer when everyone else is running away.
Internal tooling in software companies is a beast in its own.
the toolmaking, that is being discussed here, is not generic, but very specific to the business. tool specialists today are probably even more important, because "we" (collective IT industry) became carried away with frameworks and lost ability to solve simplest problems by hand (the infamous 'leftpad' comes to mind; or was it rightpad?). writing small, targeted, fast code that solves specific business problem is the lost art now.
For what it's worth, every rated parachutist packs their own parachute. For the reserve chute, it's always packed or repacked by an FAA certified rigger, which is an incredibly high bar by comparison. They must be repacked every 6 months.
The estimate is that on average a parachute will fail one in a thousand times, mostly due to packing error, seldom due to equipment failure. Maybe 90/10 ratio.
For a reserve, the expectation is that they would fail less than one in 10,000 times they are deployed. Which means that, collectively, avoidable errors should only happen one in every million or so rides on a parachute. This is less often than the real observed rate (1 per 75k or so), but errors other than packing or equipment failure are often the root cause.
According to Wikipedia, it varies. Some organizations don't require the jumper to pack their own parachute. What does seem to be a common principle is that "All riggers are jumpers and can be asked at any time to jump with a parachute they have packed." or in the US military, that any rigger has packed, without knowing who.
Yep. It's not really that you have to pack your own parachute, more that it's cost and convenience to do so, so it's pretty universal as far as I am aware. I'm not certified or anything but I've jumped a few times and that's what the 10k+ jumpers said at the time.
My takeaway is that there are benefits to in-housing your own tools, not that everybody should.
There's also a middle-ground available in the software industry: reading the code of the open-source tools you use. You can understand how your tools work without rebuilding them from scratch. Also, if you're using open-source (which most people do these days), the "cheaper" argument doesn't apply.
Those smoke jumpers aren’t making their own nuts and bolts, ropes, cloth, or felling their own trees. They’re making tools by assembly. Many of us work the same way.
From what I understand every master craftsman has a small quantity of tools they either made themselves or at least modified to purpose. Tools with bits added on or ground off (eg, wrenches ground thin for tight spots, or magnetized).
I class jigs as a separate category but I have no handy parallel for software.
I remember reading in a Navy Seal's memoirs that when training to be a sniper, they were all responsible for making their own camouflage suits. The point being that when you're out in the open, you have to know how to make use of what's around you to camouflage yourself.
I do question this a little bit. One of my hobbies is racing sailboats, which doesn't have quite as exacting requirements as fighting wild fires, but it still requires specialized gear. I could not for the life of me make the splice required for a particular component on my last boat. It always looked good, but it inevitably failed after a few days of racing. When I bought one from an expert it would last for years.
Craftsmanship matters and you just won't become an expert building exactly the number that you need for yourself.
A related anecdote: There was for a long time, a history of students in certain disciplines such as physics and some areas of chemistry, making their own tools and equipment. My dad had to build an NMR as part of an analytical chemistry course. I built an exceptional amount of gear for my graduate research project. Of course there's the bit about using cheap labor.
But a side result is that you have a chance of actually understanding how your tools work, which is beneficial when developing new tools or when the tools stop working.
That might have more to do with 1)students being cheap & 2)researchers often needing custom equipment that is unavaliable commercially.
I know the justification given for undergrad chemists learning glassworking was the expectation that as professionals it would be a required skill.
It was for my dad. He was doing vacuum line work, so he pretty much had to do his own glasswork, because his requirements would change from one experiment to the next. Same as why a lot of scientists do their own programming.
In my own case it was because instrumentation was the thing that I was ultimately interested in, and the expertise that I developed in grad school got me going in my career. The stuff that I built was on top of the roughly half million dollars worth of commercial equipment that I used.
Situation here is of real world which is different from software world. Real world equipment can degrade/develop faults after use so its important to inspect them before each job(especially when risk associated are very high) which is possible only when person is familiar with equipment construction and building things yourself is the best way to get familiar with its mechanics.Whereas in software world, things don't degrade with use and we have option to automate inspection cheaply.
There's an old saying among firefighters: "The fire service is 200+ years of tradition, unimpeded by progress". Now obviously that isn't strictly true, and SF does have some good reasons for sticking with their wooden ladders... but one can't help but suspect that sheer tradition is a somewhat significant factor.
Of course some departments adopt change faster than others, and some kinds of change are adopted more readily, so it's hard to make any sweeping generalizations.
> one can't help but suspect that sheer tradition is a somewhat significant factor
Only if you didn't read the article.
"There's a city-specific reason why San Francisco has stuck with wood rather than swap over to metals, and the answer lies in looking up. The high-voltage cables and wires that guide the city's (oft-maligned) public transport system Muni, and trolley cars crisscross above nearly every street, mean that ladders made of conductive elements are generally just too dangerous to use."
I would bet another advantage of wood is they fail gracefully.
"We had one ladder here that was fully involved in a fire for 25 minutes, and the whole tip of it—six feet—was crispy. It looked like a log you pull out of a campfire," Braun says. "That can't go back in service but we were curious, so we put a new halyard [rope used to hoist ladders] on it for a load test. Even in that condition, it passed."
I would add that aluminum ladders tend to be bouncy because there's very little mechanical damping. I've climbed 30' aluminum ladders and in the middle it's like being on a trampoline. You have to go slow. Wood ladders seem better for racing up and down.
There are plenty of ladders on the market that are non-conductive. None of them are wood because wood is conductive. (though wood does have some interesting fire properties that probably make them better anyway)
Did you read the comment you're replying to? I said very specifically "SF does have some good reasons for sticking with their wooden ladders". And note that I said "a somewhat significant factor" NOT "the only factor" or even "the biggest factor".
In fact, I did read the article, and I see nothing that contradicts the suggestion that tradition is "a somewhat significant factor" in their continued use of wooden ladders.
I work at a power company. For portable ladders, we use both wood and fiberglass. However we don't fight fires so we don't take fire or heat ratings into consideration and we maintain a minimum distance of 10' (or OSHA minimum approach distance for qualified electricians/linemen) between a ladder and anything energized.
It's interesting, and I wonder to what extent sticking to tradition like this also helps them stick to tradition with regards to values. I mean, obviously, not all values from 200 years ago are worth hanging on to, but I see the firehouse as a place of mutual respect and trust and understanding. I wonder how much of that culture would fade if they just threw everything away and replaced it, had a purchasing department, etc. (for example).
This is where some of the real value of tradition lies. It's in the art of handing something down from mentor to protege, the time spent learning the craft, learning respect for what was done before, true appreciation for labour and effort.
I'm not sure why, but I'm reminded of that scene in Gangs of New York where two fire brigades show up to a house fire and proceed to duke it out over who has rights to put it out and plunder the building. The building ends up burning down.
"We had one ladder here that was fully involved in a fire for 25 minutes, and the whole tip of it—six feet—was crispy. It looked like a log you pull out of a campfire," Braun says. "That can't go back in service but we were curious, so we put a new halyard [rope used to hoist ladders] on it for a load test. Even in that condition, it passed."
Wood is a surprisingly good building material for surviving fires. A nice thick wooden beam can take days to burn through in a house fire where e.g. a metal support would yield as soon as it gets hot enough.
> There's a city-specific reason why San Francisco has stuck with wood rather than swap over to metals, and the answer lies in looking up. The high-voltage cables and wires that guide the city's (oft-maligned) public transport system Muni, and trolley cars crisscross above nearly every street, mean that ladders made of conductive elements are generally just too dangerous to use.
I wonder how it's done in European cities with their trams (the ones which don't use APS).
Here lies a pretty cool article about a pretty cool practice demonstrating how the SFFD maintains their own equipment, to their own specifications (rather than an approximation thereof), and for less money than simply farming it out to a vendor. There might even be an applicable (to HN) lesson here on the value of employing an in-house toolmaker, whatever your profession may be.
And then there's this lot here in the comments that is completely in arms against it because le Hackernews is obviously an expert Fire Brigade, or just has an allergic reaction to civilian government agencies maintaining their own equipment versus joining the throwaway consumerist cult the rest of world has acquiesced to.
I think a big part of it is a tendency of tech/engineering sorts to have an allergic reaction against any sort of tradition. Old fashioned is worse than uncool, it's dumb and outs you as an inferior mind to the engineering who is always rational and pragmatic and has no time for tradition.
"[wood ladders] don't conduct electricity like aluminum or wet fiberglass ladders do."
"'Aluminum or fiberglass, when it gets too hot, it gets soft; it will actually fold over without any warning,' he said. 'Wood takes hours to fail completely -- enough time for a firefighter to see it burning and get off it.'"
"Once an aluminum or fiberglass ladder cracks, it usually has to be replaced. Wooden ones can always be repaired, he said."
I looked up g11 and g10 for their structural heat limits, because I know they have a higher heat resistance than most fiberglass, and are limited to around 150c/ 300f. I looked up what a typical house fire burns at which is 600c/1100f.
This is actually a great case where asbestos shines. It's nonconductive and can stand very high temperatures. If not for the whole cancer thing.
The film industry uses almost exclusively fiberglass as well. There's no shortage. They're swimming in those things. I would bet their lifespan is shorter than the wooden ladders, however. At least from what I've seen.
Fiberglass is reinforced plastic, though, so that might explain why it isn't used in FDs even if it's heavily used in other domains. How well does it hold up to heat? How does that exposure effect it structural properties? I honestly don't know and don't have time to look it up, but I could see thermal plastic deformation over such a long run as potentially hazardous.
Could be. I know film shoots can end up occurring in all kinds of weather (especially here in Canada), and often the ladders will be sidled up to large sun lamps (which I can assure you get very hot), and in electrically-compromising situations, but all of those are very different from an actual fire.
Wow. I wish I had time in the day to look at NFPA (Nat'l FIre Protection Assn) standards. 1931, 1914, and 1911 seem pertinent - this is clearly something that many people have devoted a lot of time and energy to.
I worked for a supplier to the industry for a little while heading an electrical department, but spent some time in hardware maintenance as well. I saw plenty of those things nearly bleached white if they lasted long enough.
ive spent most of my last 10 years on a ladder due to my job. This is absurd. Aluminum ladders require practically no maintenance and are far far lighter. Weight of a ladder being a significant factor in set up speed, required manpower for set up, and ease of handling. A wood ladder is completely impractical. Fiberglass however is another great option.
> Wood is resilient in ways which aluminum—now standard for fire department ladders—can't even compare. "You know if you take an empty coke can and bend it three or four times and it tears really easy? That's what aluminum ladders will do," Braun says. "They have a seven to eight year lifespan, after which they need to be replaced."
> Wooden ladders, on the other hand, can last indefinitely. "You can stress wood right up to its failure point a million times; as long as you don't go beyond that, it will come right back to where it was. They can be involved in a fire for a pretty long time; after that, it's just a matter of sanding off the top coat of material then inspecting the wood. If it's good we'll re-oil it, revarnish it, and put it back in service."
Loved reading this! I just finished restored a 1912 house in Oakland made out of the same old growth west coast douglas fir - from the framing to the copious clear vertical grain and quarter sawn wainscoting, all stripped, sanded and refinished in a natural varnish. Great to see this kind of craftsmanship alive and well!
I live near a fire station in SF, and see them practicing raising a huge 20+ foot ladder monthly out front of the station. They're pretty impressive ladders, and it looks like it takes quite a lot of coordination to raise them up.
x2. This seems like a case where there probably exists better options but the cost and friction of switching is too high. As long as the money's still coming there's no reason to look for alternatives though, especially when looking for alternatives would involve doing battle with a union over the jobs the alternatives would eliminate.
Does SF really have that many more overhead power lines than other cities to warrant the extra expense? Firefighters elsewhere don't exactly get fried on the daily.
Are there other types of cheaper (in terms of cost per ladder per year) ladders that can be used? Is there a high temp fiberglass? Does someone make aluminum ladders coated in rubber?
Edit: per jdietrich's comment NFPA 1931 compliant fiberglass fire ladders do exist
Fiberglass is a terrible choice for these ladders. Most places use Aluminum or steel but that has conductivity issues with the amount of overhead powerlines in SF. They can be coated to reduce conductivity but that has other issues.
Wood burns, but doesn't burst into flame with heat and stress. Do fiberglass ladders start to separate into fibers and epoxy under stress conditions, and is that very fine material prone to rapid ignition?
Toss a wood log on top of a fire for 10 minutes then rinse it off with water and you have basically the same wooden log. That fits with how firefighters use ladders because they are trying to put fires out.
It's much larger issue if a ladder is exposed to high temperatures then suddenly fails without warning.
All those downsides apply to wood and aluminum to varying extents. It's a typical case of engineering trade-offs.
Wood chips and cracks (well, splits but it's basically the same thing) dents in any metal structure cause stress rises that do basically the same thing for strength as chips and cracks in fiberglass.
Wood and metal assemblies will all "fail suddenly" when overloaded because a huge part of their strength comes from their shape, they deform from overloading and that reduces strength (positive feedback loop).
Regarding heat, a quick google search turned up  which is good to just shy of 400f, about same temp at which the strength of 6061 falls off a cliff. I also found this which to me indicates that the underlying chemical science is at a point where a fiberglass should be able to replicate the heat resistance of aluminum.
Several manufacturers offer NFPA 1931 compliant fiberglass fire ladders. When used with a suitable resin, fiberglass has significantly better resistance to heat and flame. Fiberglass and wood are both prone to sudden failure due to crack propagation, but in both cases that risk is mitigated by regular inspection.
You'd be completely wrong. They have access to a lot of wood up there, the space to store that wood, and the time to dry it completely. The actual woodworking itself takes a small fraction of the time, and the overall cost of a wood ladder built this way is under $1000.
In contrast, a high-heat-tolerant resin is expensive. The amount of such resin needed for a table-sized ladder would cost in the hundreds; for a 50 foot ladder, the resin alone would cost in the thousands--and that does not include the cost of other materials, or the cost of actually making, test, or shipping the ladder.
All you're describing sounds way more expensive than a couple carpenters...simply being able to fix a ladder than toss it is a huge saving
Its the little details:
-- For example, a 3" Fiberglass Ibeam 10 feet long is ~$200, and only rated to 140 degrees. I can't readily find a more comparable product.
-- your aluminum ladder with high temp rubber, also needs to be electrically insulated; so now you have to toss the whole ladder if the shell is breached in any little way, and probably needs to be re-certified yearly.
You say it like its a bad thing. They build a product that consistently has carried firefighters and civilians to safety. They should be making a living wage, and have the ability to retire instead of dying on a factory line at 90.
You should try reading the article. They specifically state that they re-use components whenever possible, and they regularly service their ladders to keep them in good condition. Aluminum ladders only have a 7-8 year lifespan vs some of the ladders they use going on 60 years before being taken out of commission.
I don't just mean wasteful in terms of materials, but also in terms of man-hours, equipment needing to be owned and maintained. Once all factors for the total cost of ownership are taken in to account I highly doesn't it's efficient. It's like everyone growing their own vegetables.