By Bill Adams

September 2018’s Cantankerous Wisdom, “La Familia Fire Trucks,” mentioned father and son dealerships that sold Saulsbury Fire Apparatus. Several former Saulsbury dealers chastised me because I forgot Andy and Ryan Kaza in Pennsylvania. Fifteen years ago, when Ryan was in high school, he started working alongside his father Andy. He’s still there. Us white hairs can’t remember everything; it’s in our unwritten Raisin Squad rule book.

Ever notice how a simple discussion can lead into one long drawn-out affair after another? Joe Merrill, who does inside apparatus sales at Spencer Manufacturing, and I were discussing fire pump discharges and, in particular, why the NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, does not address the valve and piping size for large-diameter discharges. I don’t think it makes sense, but 1901’s sentence 3.3.51 Discharge Outlet Size says: “The nominal size of the first hose connection from the pump on a discharge.” It doesn’t say anything about the size valve or piping or what the discharge has to be used for such as a deck gun. Merrill and I beat that topic to death. My final take is that it is unfortunate the valve and piping does not count. Some fire departments may mistakenly believe just because a discharge has an LDH fitting it will flow big water. Apparatus manufacturers may have different designs and claim different flows for an LDH discharge in the same location. In order to keep everyone on the same page and to ensure a desired flow, departments should specify a certified flow test on the discharge. In fact, that’s one requirement the NFPA should incorporate in 1901. That’ll separate the chaff from the wheat.

Bill Peters, author of the Fire Apparatus Purchasing Handbook and a member of NFPA 1901’s Technical Committee weighed in that NFPA 1901 sentence 16.7.1 indicates outlet connections of 2½-inch or larger must be provided to discharge the rated capacity of the pump with flow rates as shown in Table 16.7.1. He adds that the Annex says "The purpose of this section is to provide sufficient discharge outlet connections to allow the apparatus to relay-supply the rated capacity of the pump for a distance of 1,200 ft or greater." 

Splitting hairs with NFPA 1901 as I occasionally do, I wonder why they’re concerned with moving water 1,200 feet but don’t require an appropriate amount of hose to accomplish it. I broached the subject with the raisins at morning coffee. They were brutal. “It ain’t NFPA’s business telling us how far we gotta move the water. They oughta just concern themselves with the right number of outlets to get water out of the pump. If the fire department wantd to shoot water out of a deck gun or the rig’s tailpipe, that’s the department’s business.” 

Back to the conversation with Merrill, another question came up neither of us could definitively answer. It was, “When calculating the number of discharges to determine a pump's rating, does the discharge to a deck gun (monitor) above a pump house count?” When I asked Peters, he replied, “Since a deck gun is not required, there is no mention of a rating for it.” I asked Joe Messmer, owner of Summit Fire Apparatus, the same question. He answered, “I feel this is a loaded question! My first inclination is certainly, why couldn't you? If you can get a gun big enough and an opening in the pump large enough why can't you?” Then he added, “The way you’re asking makes me suspicious!” Bear in mind, Joe is

Nashville (TN) Fire Department, 101-foot AerialCat tractor-drawn aerial. Predator tractor cab; Cummins ISX12 500-hp engine; 500-pound unrestricted wet-dry tip load rating.

Here in the Rocky Mountains of Idaho, we have both unique and common extrication challenges. Some of these involve available volunteer staffing, lack of timely mutual aid, poor radio and satellite communications because of terrain, vehicles into the river, and a number of other factors that go with the business of firefighting and technical rescue in this beautiful part of the country.

Probably the single biggest challenge that we face regarding these obstacles is performing extrication operations in what we know as harsh winter weather environments. As it is with many other northern areas, this struggle is very real. Returning from a few weeks of working with departments all over the great state of Alaska put our winter struggle here in “the lower 48” into perspective.

We are “used to” daily winter temperatures in the single digits and below zero. We expect to see a decent amount of snow and ice on our highways. “Really cold” to us means 20 below zero for a few days at a time. My fire district is 2,400 square miles, and it can easily take well over an hour and a half to drive from one end of the district to the other, depending on weather. After spending time with many firefighters from all over Alaska and seeing their winter vehicle rescue and personnel survival challenges, our struggles pale in comparison. I share this information with you because I hope there is some takeaway for you and your department (as there was for me) to help enhance the safety and effectiveness of your winter operations, wherever you may serve.

1  2 These photos are examples of damage done by hitting a giant moose in Alaska with a vehicle. (Photos by author.)

CHAINING YOUR SHOES

One of my first winter assignments in the Last Frontier was with some great firefighters from the Anchorage (AK) Fire Department. Driving from my hotel to the training site, I was blown away at the amount of ice on all the roadways after a relatively minor weather system. The highway was literally littered with vehicles that had slid off of the roadway, rolled-over vehicles, and vehicles that had collided with each other. None of the occupants of these wrecks seemed to have any kind of footing, regardless of their choice of footwear. What didn

• 375
• 0
• Article rating: No rating