1. #1
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    331

    Default Pump question for tanker request...

    I have a unique 'problem' that I'm not sure how to address in my new tanker app... My current tanker has 1500 gallons water and a 750 gpm pump, by size and discharges. What I mean is the truck came through in 1977 without a pump certification - the pump was really only there to self refill the tank, not really for firefighting (so we were told) I was computer rejected last year for having 'too many the same class' vehicles to warrant AFG (also 2 pumpers: 1000gpm, 1250gpm, both with 1000 gallon tanks) Do I classify this as a 750 gpm pump? Do I classify it differently, as if it had a portable pump or something like that? I have that in the narrative, but what do I put down in the description?

    We are in an extremly rural area - the only water I have I bring to the party until mutual aid gets there... 2000 additional gallons would hold me over till then, but I've got to get past the blasted computer! Thoughts? Anybody run into this problem before? Thanks.

  2. #2
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    If it wasn't built and tested as a fire pump how do you know the GPM rating?

    The too many comment also comes through if you have trucks of a different class that are a lot newer than the one you're trying to replace. So if you have that 77 tanker with 2 pumpers newer than 10 years old, the question that comes up is why wasn't one of those pumpers a new tanker if you needed one so badly when you bought the 2nd new pumper?

    If the pump doesn't move 750gpm then shouldn't be marked as such IMHO. Pumps only count what they test out to be.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    331

    Default

    We're told it is a 750. Intake is 4.5", and (3) 2.5" discharges. From my expierence, that would add up to be a 750... We were told back then it was not meant to be used heavily or continuously, as it would 'burn it out'... The pump does not have a rating plate, does not even have test ports... The tanker was a Salsbury demo tanker that we purchased for 'a good price' (and back then, 1977, they decided we didn't need to waste money on a test and rating plate, but then they bought a nice bronze plate dedicating it to the Chief and Commissioners...) Wasn't really a concern back then... Now, however....

    My 2 pumpers: 1978 Ford Pierce 1000/1000 (canopy cab), which was donated from another company (replaced our 1977 GMC Bean 1000/750)and 2002 GMC Central States 1250/1000 purchased new to replace the 1968 Ford Hahn 750/1000.

    Oh, what a GREAT Monday!... Thanks, Ben

  4. #4
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    The denials are computer generated based on scoring in certain categories, so it sticks the phrase in that the designers said should be there under certain conditions. Or they have what us programmers called a catch-all, which happens when none of the other conditions are met. Meaning we stick that in to provide some result other than an error.

    I think that's the case since I can't see how you'd get that error asking for a tanker. That's still your best bet.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Here's an update to this saga: when trying to use the pump on this tanker at the last fire (to pump the tank over to the pumper) it was acting up. At our drill Monday night, we put it through it's paces (but it wouldn't even engage) so the truck just turned into a tender only...

    My Commissioners reminded me last night that when it was delivered in 1977, we were told this pump was just thrown in the open space, it isn't even a fire rated pump: it is an aircraft refuling pump that just had fire thread intakes and discharges...

    NOW, how does THIS change my classification of the pump: non-working refuling pump on the tanker that we 'figure' it being 750 due to the size of the intakes and number of discharges?

    Good thing I didn't hit the submit button yet....

  6. #6
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Working or not it has a rated capacity and since at best it's 750gpm it still is a tanker. Tankers can have 750gpm and smaller with 1000+ tanks, 750 and bigger with any size tank is pumper. So for argument's sake a 750gpm with 950gal tank is a pumper.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,761

    Default

    The PG states,

    For example, the pumper category includes: pumpers, engines, pumper/tankers (apparatus that carries a minimum of 300 gallons of water and has a pump with a capacity to pump a minimum of 750 gallons per minute), rescue-pumpers, quints (with aerials less than 76 feet in length), and urban interface vehicles (Type I). Apparatus that has water capacity in excess of 1,000 gallons and a pump with pumping capacity of less than 750gallons per minute are considered to be a tanker/tender.
    If you base this on what they have described, it would be classified as a pumper. More than likely viewed as a pumper/tanker.
    Last edited by onebugle; 05-14-2009 at 10:14 AM.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    331

    Default

    With all due respect, it is not and does not have a rated capacity... There are no test ports, no rating plate, no way to tell what it's capacity actually is. We are assuming it is a 750 by the fact that it has 4.5" intakes and 3 2.5" discharges (ya, I know the defination of assume....) We've called it a 750 for years, but don't even have a way of verifying that is what it is... How big are 1977 aircraft refuling pumps anyway?
    Last edited by medic190; 05-14-2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason: hit button before checking...

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by medic190 View Post
    With all due respect, it is not and does not have a rated capacity... There are no test ports, no rating plate, no way to tell what it's capacity actually is. We are assuming it is a 750 by the fact that it has 4.5" intakes and 3 2.5" discharges (ya, I know the defination of assume....) We've called it a 750 for years, but don't even have a way of verifying that is what it is... How big are 1977 aircraft refuling pumps anyway?
    Converted refueler is more signifianct than any of the previous info provided. You don't have a tanker/tender. You have a homebuilt conversion to a tanker. Was never a NFPA compliant tanker.

    If a AF DOD surplus refueller (standard size for at least 30years has been 5000gal in the 70s Dodge R-9 in the 80s Mack R-11, or in 90s Oshkosh 6000gal R-13) OEM pump on these has been Hale PTO 500gpm. If you have a AF tank may have been (properly) reduced in size to haul water.

    DOD has purchased a variety of smaller refuelers but I don't know if they have same pump or not. I'd suggest crawling under the truck and check pump casting for mfg name. If a PTO pump it is unlikely to be more than 500gpm. In any case pump was "designed" for moving fuel not a fire pump design/certified for pumping water (perhaps fine line to be sure) so I'd say has no pump.

    As a homebuilt/conversion you should be in good shape for grant. Play up that is/was never NFPA, baffles (if any) do not comply with NFPA standards/unsafe.

  10. #10
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    bugle, app it's in the application and other stuff that 750 is both pumper and tanker depending on tank size. Since they didn't change all of the documentation (surprise) they're holding 750 as both. So 750gpm and 1000+ is tanker, 750 and under 1000 is pumper.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Now everybody can see my problem...

    NEIOWA: this is actually a fire tanker manufactured in 1977 by Sailsbury: 1500 gallon tank with 6" rear manual dump. According to the Chairman of the Commissioners (who bought the truck) we were told it is a PTO fuel transfer pump (aircraft refuler pump) although it is midship mounted (that's way too much information for any of our guys to make this stuff up!) The salesman and guys teaching us to use it told us that it is not a fire pump, don't use it a lot, it's really for self filling and occasionally pumping off... It doesn't have the test ports for testing and was never rated... The blasted truck never really ran good (but that is what they could afford then...) and seems to be out of service more than inservice, which has a negative effect on my mutual aid given stats, as well as it's use in district...

    So the moral of the story is that it is a fire tanker (with baffles, etc.) but my issue turns out to be the pump... A fuel transfer, non-fire certified / rated pump, assumed to be 750 by size. That could be why the computer kicked me last year because I said it was 750 and I have 2 'other' pumpers (1000, 1250) that both carry 1000 water each. I can explain most of this in my narrative, but the blasted computer doesn't read the narratives...

    If I had any hair left, it would be grey! I have a room reserved in the funny farm!.....

  12. #12
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Only fire pumps are rated by 2.5" discharge method, so it's not a 750gpm for those reasons. And if it's not an NFPA approved pump, it sure isn't 750gpm, or a pump really. I don't think fuel xfer pumps would run more than 100gpm. Has to be someone that was in the service that would know the approximate rating on it, but I wouldn't argue with you claiming 250gpm on the app. I think that's a reasonable value since we know it's not 750gpm.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,660

    Default

    From your description it sounds like the same pump we have on our 1980 tanker. It is rated at 350 GPM and not for continous duty cycle. The pto drive will not handle any more flow than this. There were several versions built for fueler.de-fueler use in that time frame that were rated between 250 & 500 GPM., depending on the tank to pump intake size.
    They are not rated for fire service use ,but work well for self loading tankers.
    Hope this helps.

    PS. our tanker was made in NH so it's quite possible that it's a similar pump as there were a lot of them available surplus.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    308

    Default

    We are in the same boat. We have a converted long haul truck that someone mounted a front mount pump on. It is Hale branded, but i could not find any info on the pump, and it does not have a cert plate. It is a split shift 1976 freightliner with a stainless steel tank (2950g) from another vocation. The pump has 4 2.5" discharges and has a 5" intake, so i would say it pumps 1000gpm, even though tenders evidently are not rated by discharges (what bc said a few posts ago). Additionally the Tank to Pump line just happens to also be the Pump to Tank line...

    It works, but only a few know how to drive it. I forced myself to learn it, but i have a farming background. We would like to keep it as a 2nd out or as a substation tender, but realize chances are better if we condemn.

    Can classify it as having a pump? If yes, it gets classified as a pumper tender and we look like a single tender (1500g) district.
    Overall we want a tender that anyone can drive and one so that we are not dependent upon the

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Giong back and re-reading his post, I believe BC was saying more or less that a non-fire pump is not 'sized' by it's intakes and discharges. The only difference between a pumper and a tender is the amount of water carried in the tank (I've seen some huge pumper-tankers - 1500 gpm pumps!)

    Problem in my post was the fact that the pump is a 'aircraft refuler' pump, not a fire service pump (even though it was mounted on a fire chassis) From your description, it sounds as if your pump might very well be a fire pump that was mounted on a non-fire chassis... If you can find the serial, contact hale and have them provide you the info on that pump (rating, build date, etc.)...

    Yes, you'd likely get a higher score to remove the converted vehicle from fire service, rather than keeping it as an additional vehicle... Best of luck to you! I've been asking for a vehicle for 3 years now with no luck (never made it past the computer yet!) Hopefully this is my year...

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    44

    Default

    We are running around with old DoD refuelers. We shortened the tank on the old Dodge and had to find a used chassis to mount it on. Then we picked up a Mack, removed the Hale pump and shortened the frame to butt the tank up with the cab. Otherwise the things are just too darn long. It is nice to show up with huge amounts of water, but sad to watch mutual aid 2000gal tankers run circles around our old GI Joe trucks. Please FEMA, help me get rid of these old water buffaloes!!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question Under Request Details
    By JSMV72 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 07:02 PM
  2. Question about reduction on AFG request for Washer/Extractor & Dryer
    By Shazza in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2008, 02:06 PM
  3. Tanker pump supply
    By xxxshiftxxx in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-28-2007, 10:59 AM
  4. Rescue Pumper request...what if any equipment can be part of our grant request?
    By FyredUp in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-30-2004, 09:05 AM
  5. Tanker filling pump.
    By Sand Creek Lynn in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-13-2000, 11:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register