Images from Gordon J. Nord, Jr. of the Chicago 2-11 Alarm and Level I Haz Mat, 7-25-16 on the Stevenson Expressway near Cicero Avenue.
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
#1 by John on August 1, 2016 - 4:00 PM
Yup, I figured that part out. Still a valid question though as ARFF rigs are obviously not designed for city traffic and in some areas escorts are used and others they are not. Just not sure what the protocol is here…
#2 by Brian on August 1, 2016 - 2:47 PM
This incident happened on I-55 right down Cicero Avenue from Midway where 652 is housed.
#3 by John on August 1, 2016 - 12:32 PM
Did 652 have an escort for the trip? That’s a big rig to haul through traffic in a hurry! I also don’t think they plate the ARFF rigs do they? (silly technicalities)
#4 by Fred M on July 31, 2016 - 11:39 AM
This may have been asked before, but are the ARFF “wagons” airtight? Is the driver safe in a Haz Mat environment?
#5 by Bill Post on July 30, 2016 - 11:33 AM
BMurphy I more or less have the same question. Apparently they were able to dispatch 652 from Midway but just like you I was wondering about the minimum number of ARFF units required to remain on the field at all times? 651 did remain on the field. I don’t know if you read my comments under Eric Haak’s photos of the same incident but I mentioned that for a short period of time in the mid 1990’s the CFD had a few ARFF units that were not at the airports. In 1995 there was a one at Engine 106’s house and there was another with Engine 34. Those were 6511 and 6512 at the time.
Engine 80’s house might also have had one at one time. I do know that Engine 80 did run Chemical Wagon 638 which was a Ford C series 1967 model pumper that had foam in the booster tank. That rig was originally assigned to Engine Company 118 which used to be assigned to Midway Airport. In later years Engine 118 was taken out of service but their former rig was converted into a foam chemical wagon and for a while was stationed with Engine 80 along with one of the dry chemical wagons. For a while Dry Chemical 623 and then later I believe 625 was in Engine 80’s house. The dry chemical units were shifted around several times however.
You are correct about O’Hare having many ARFF units in fact they now have 8 assigned as regular companies. The newest company is 6510 and they run out of Station 1 on the south end of the field. You are probably familiar with the Foam Task Force at O’Hare. It consists of Engine 9, Squad 7, and one ARFF unit that will respond off the field when called. A few years ago 653 was usually dispatched as part of the Foam Task Force but now it may be discretionary.
Coincidentally if you notice a few lines down from this article there was an 7-alarm fire in Gurnee which is part of MABAS Division 4. They were using an ARFF unit at that fire. It is designated as a Quadrant Foam Unit to be used whenever large amounts of foam are required. MABAS Division 4 is divided into 4 quadrants as it covers all of Lake County which is pretty spread out.
The CFD did have a stakebed truck located with Engine 28 designated as Bulk Foam Carrier 632. It carried many Rockwood foam containers and cannisters however I haven’t heard about that being used at the incident that we are talking about.
Either way it would make alot of sense for Chicago to locate a few reserve ARFF units at fire stations outside of the airports to respond immediately for incidents like this one. They could be dispatched along with the company that they are located with instead of having to wait for the Foam Task Force to come all the way from O’Hare. They could just put a couple of them in fire stations near the expressways like they did in the 1990’s.
#6 by Mike on July 31, 2016 - 7:46 AM
I think the decision to take the ARFF’s out of the city firehouses was due to having qualified drivers available. The ARFF’s are not easy to drive on the street. They don’t turn well at all and are pretty easy to roll over. So I don’t think the city wanted the liability.
#7 by John Hermanek on July 30, 2016 - 11:17 AM
Great question, BMurphy….I was wondering the same exact thing. What a great resource to have on-hand to deal with this type of incident!
#8 by BMurphy on July 30, 2016 - 8:04 AM
Great photos! This incident does make one appreciate having quick access to a means of bulk/rapid AFFF application. Every jurisdiction has the potential for this type of incident.
That being said, does anyone know how ARFF protection and meeting the FAA ARFF Index level is maintained at MDW if one of the ARFF units is sent off-airport? As far as I remember, there’s only 2 major ARFF units at the firehouse on the field (Engine 127) and if one is out, it would appear to be a bit ‘thin’ in terms of aircraft fire suppression, given the size and number of airliners present. I know this is not much of an issue at ORD where there are (I believe) 7 major ARFF trucks, but seemingly not so st MDW. Does the CFD send a reserve unit to MDW from another house to cover?