(2) This image is from the Kongsberg Sector Scan Sonar unit. The search
was for a missing ice fisherman who fell through on a large lake the night
before. On the day the sonar team responded, it set up in an airboat and
traveled out to the last seen point. On the second drop of the sonar head
Read more
- 792
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: Jun 4, 2013
Bill Adams
The 2013 trade show season is underway, and apparatus pundits are rushing to print the latest and greatest innovations in the fire truck world. Recent articles heap praise on those manufacturers who can cram ten pounds of fire truck into a five-pound space. Equal admiration is bestowed on fire departments that spec multifunction apparatus to the next highest, longest, widest, heaviest, and most expensive level. It happens every year. You seldom see an article complimenting a simple straightforward single-purpose apparatus design. You never see a follow-up commentary on a rig that's been in service for a couple of years: "Hey, Chief, how's that design working for you? Would you change anything? Buy one like it again?"
Apparatus commentators are seldom explicit in expressing personal likes or dislikes. And, they never disagree, challenge, or take issue with a rig's design, accoutrements, or intended function. This article will.
Readers, please take note: This is not a criticism of the manufacturer, the fire department, or how either operates. It's irrelevant who wrote the specs, who built it, who bought it, and what it's made out of. It's an outsider's personal analysis of some features of a pumper from operational and spec-writing perspectives. Maybe it'll help the next department when writing specifications for a new rig.
Engine 41 was designed as a primary attack pumper whose sole function is to establish a water supply and put wet stuff on the red stuff. It was not designed to serve double duty as a rescue, tanker, squad, service, salvage, or ladder company. You can't get much more basic than that. Its response area can be characterized as an older congested northeastern municipality with narrow streets, narrower alleys, and approximately 13,000 residents packed into fewer than two square miles.
Basic Design
The truck replaced an older pumper of similar size with open jump seats. The new rig, less than 29 feet long, has a short 168-inch wheelbase-only six inches longer than its predecessor. It has a six-person custom cab, 500-gallon tank, 2,000-gallon-per-minute (gpm) rated pump, preconnected truck-mounted monitor, and traditional body style with high left-side and low right-side compartments. At first glance, it looks like a ho-hum "plain Jane" vehicle. A closer look shows it's a compact, hard-hitting, versatile, and functional piece of apparatus well suited to fulfill its intended mission.
Main Hosebed
When delivered, the main hosebed was loaded with 1,000 feet of five-inch large-diameter hose (LDH) and 1,200 feet of three-inch double-jacketed rubber-lined (DJRL) hose. A 600-foot dead load of 2½-inch DJRL was carried beneath a 2½-inch preconnect. There's more than 150 cubic feet of space in the bed-five times the minimum required by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus-for 2½-inch or larger fire hose. It easily accommodates the aforementioned hose plus four rear preconnects. And, it's not full yet.
There is no issue with the quantity and size of supply line carried. That's the department's business. I favor large hosebed capacities. However, it could have been configured to allow a walkway to facilitate loading. A walkway in the main bed makes the troops' lives easy. Easy is good.
Everyone likes low hosebeds. An "L" shaped tank keeps the bed less than four feet from the tailboard. And, it's almost 40 inches deep. It looks good, but looks can be deceiving. Most firefighters have about a three-foot wing span. How easy (or hard) will it be for firefighters on top of the rig to lean or reach over the top of a couple of hosebed dividers and access the bottom of the bed? That could be problematic if you have a couple of short-armed firefighters trying to load single-stacked hose into a 40-inch-deep bed.
Read more
- 838
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: Jun 3, 2013
By Chris Mc Loone
I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind every revision that comes down the pike from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). I don't always agree with them, but none has ever made me angry enough that I really get a chip on my shoulder about it. And, I realize that revisions are made in the name of safety.
There are some in the fire service who would have you believe the NFPA is our enemy when it comes to many things-that it makes all sorts of rules that we must follow when specing apparatus or purchasing equipment, adding all sorts of costs to the final price of an apparatus. The contrary is true, and a few recent events reinforce this for me.
Not the Enemy
First, the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment editorial advisory board recently met and, during the meeting, talk turned to the NFPA. The conversation revolved around how there is good, solid equipment available to the fire service, but often it comes at a premium price if it is NFPA-compliant.
Bill Peters, a voting member of the NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Apparatus, committee stated that there are some who think the committees are in cahoots with the manufacturers, but he decried that premise. In the case of apparatus, he went on to say that no apparatus manufacturer wants to build extra costs into an apparatus and reminded the group that it's not always the NFPA adding costs. In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) caught most of the grief because of the costs involved with 2010 engines.
Second, I sat in at the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA) spring Technical Committee meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, FAMA President Harold Boer mentioned that NFPA 1901; 1906, Standard for Wildland Fire Apparatus; and 1917, Standard for Automotive Ambulances, are currently in the revision process. Based on 2012 numbers, which indicate the market has remained generally flat, he challenged committee members to "be careful when we propose these new standards not to add significant cost to the trucks and see our market go down further. If there's a problem, let's address it. If not, let's have a recommended guideline." See more about the Technical Committee meeting in this issue.
Third, at the Technical Committee meeting, Ryan Depew, the NFPA's staff liaison to the technical committee on fire apparatus, gave a presentation on the NFPA's new system for standards revision participation. In a nutshell, it has never been easier for us to participate in the standards revision process. The NFPA is transitioning from paper to electronic submissions. To that end, its Web site has been optimized to accept electronic comments on standards revisions. What many may not realize is that you don't have to be a member of a standard's committee to participate. Anyone can comment. And, the NFPA encourages it. What's more, we all should be doing it.
Participate
The NFPA process allows for a comment period. Anyone can comment on proposed revisions to a standard, whether you are a member of the committee or not. Committee members will review all comments and decide whether or not to incorporate them into the proposed revisions. It will also note why a comment makes it into the revision or doesn't. It goes without saying that comments like, "This is a dumb idea," are not going to make it very far into the process. Substantiate why you think a proposed revision needs to be adjusted.
The key is participation. The fire service solves more problems at the "kitchen table" but for some reason is not always ready to participate in the standards revision process, choosing instead to decry the revisions once they come out. The public input period for the first drafts of NFPA 1901, 1906, and 1917 closes on July 8, 2013. There's still plenty of time for you to be a p
Read more
- 734
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: May 15, 2013
On-duty Firefighter Albert A. Nejmeh, a 12-year veteran of the Tacoma Fire Department, died shortly before noon on Tuesday at St. Joseph Medical Center after suffering an apparent heart attack while working at the scene of an emergency medical incident. After Firefighter Nejmeh collapsed, he received immediate basic and advanced life support from his fellow firefighters, who then transported him to the hospital...
Read more
Posted: May 1, 2013
Alan M. Petrillo
Because many fire departments are stretched in terms of budgets and personnel, the designs of tankers (also called tenders) have followed the fire industry's multiuse trend, becoming pumper-tankers, and sometimes even encompassing rescue elements instead of being straight water carriers. Fire vehicle manufacturers say very few tankers are built these days without some type of pump on them and, in most cases, are pretty large pumps compared with those traditionally included on tankers simply to offload water.
 |
(1) The Lake Township (MI) Fire Department had Marion build a pumper-tanker
on a commercial chassis that carries a 2,000-gallon water tank
and a Waterous CX Sideswipe 1,250-gpm pump.
(Photo courtesy of Marion.) |
Becoming a Given
Dan White, national sales manager for Classic series products at Spartan ERV, says the pumper-tanker concept is almost a given for all the tankers his company sells. "In our Classic series, a lot of departments are using tankers in pumper-tanker and rescue-tanker roles," White points out, "and predominantly in the Southwest, Midwest, and Mountain states we're seeing tankers configured like brush fire tankers."
A brush fire tanker, White says, typically is a tanker carrying 2,000 gallons of water, a 500- to 750-gallon-per-minute (gpm) pump, booster reels, crosslays, a bumper turret, and having pump-and roll-capability to get off of the pavement and onto gravel roads. "We recently built one for the Golden Shores (AZ) Fire Department that's a four-wheel drive on a single axle and has a PTO-driven pump for pump-and-roll capability, traditional water dumps, a 1,000-gpm pump, a 2,000-gallon water tank, and a good amount of compartment space," White says. "We're seeing this as a trend in the Southwest and Mountain states areas where such a vehicle is becoming a wildland pumper-tanker. With budgets down, fire departments are trying to maximize the capability of each piece of apparatus."
White says that Spartan ERV also has seen a new phenomenon in tankers-the rescue-tanker. "It's like a pumper on steroids and typically is a very large vehicle because they are trying to carry everything under the sun," White notes. "They have a lot of compartmentation that's built to reflect the needs of the department using it and often are carrying all the gear you'd see on a pumper, as well as rescue equipment, light towers, scene lights, and water tanks of 2,000 or 2,500 gallons."
Steve Bloomstrand, vice president of operations at RocketFire, notes that RocketFire rarely quotes on a tanker that doesn't have a pump. "Now, the most desirable pump is a 1,000-gpm model, which has almost become a standard," he says. "But we're also seeing some 1,250-gpm pumps too because the vehicles are being used as pumper-tankers where they can carry major water to the scene yet still be a backup pumper."
Mike Harstad, aerial products manager for Rosenbauer, notes that a byproduct of the improved safety on tankers is that end users began looking at the vehicles as multifunctional tools rather than just water haulers. "They began putting bigger pumps on the tankers-1,000- to 1,500-gpm models-which made the vehicles into pumper-tankers that could be used as backup pumpers when necessary," Harstad points out. "These vehicles also carry a lot more storage, much like you'd see on a traditional pumper, and even rescue tools."
 |
(2) UST Fire
Read more
- 833
- Article rating: No rating
| |