1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    JAMAICA IOWA U.S.A.
    Posts
    347

    Default Let's dissect the 2010 AFG

    now that the 2010 AFG is over let's move on to dissecting it so other's can learn upon it and ask questions since they are not under the gun.

    My first question is
    Under Fire Department Characteristics (Part II) of the grant is asked ?

    Brush/Quick attack (pumping capacity of less than 750 gpm and water carrying capacity of at least 300 gallons):
    Brush Truck, Patrol Unit (Pick up w/ Skid Unit), Quick Attack Unit, Mini-Pumper, Type III Engine, Type IV Engine, Type V Engine, Type VI Engine, Type VII Engine


    Our 27 yr old Brush/Quick attack unit did not meet the 300 gallons per the PG ( minimum of 300 gallons)so I placed our unit as a "other" unit. Help desk said to include it as a brush truck, Our region office said not too. Other's said to include and other's not too.
    So what is right ?

    I placed it as "other" praying that it would finally be the piece to get past the computer scoring.

    I'm sure other Dept's have questions to add similar to this.

    Like the old NFL tv spot during a game
    "You Make the Call"

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    I remember this. After your call I sent you a message that there was a thread posted here about this same issue as it appeared on the online application. The thread posted had called the help desk and was told to list the same vehicle under the 'other' category. (I think) There was some kind of screw up with the online application.

    It was during the last 10 days before closeout.

    This one was a brain stretcher as far as I was concerned.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    790

    Default

    I had a truck to fall into a similar situation. We replaced our 1978 chevy mini pumper in 2008 with a new mini pumper, or at least thats what we catagorize it as. It is on a 4400 International chassis, and has a 1000 gpm pump, but only a 500 gallon tank. The truck is short, only 22 feet overall length. We had to go with the International chassis becuase all of the builders would not touch Ford due to the engine problems, and we don't have service for Chevy diesels for about 100 miles. The truck according to AFG has to be classified as a pumper due to the 1000 gpm pump even though it only has the 500 gallon of water. I know a lot of city departments only carry 500 gallons of water, but they also have hydrants placed every 300 to 500 feet. We unfortunately don't. I also have one department that has a F550 with a 1000 gpm pump on it, and 300 gal of water that can carry no where near the required amount of equipment to make it a compliant pumper, so due to pump size they must count it as a pumper as well. This kills them as they need a new pumper (newest is a 1978 Mack once retired). But it makes it difficult to get the trucks into the catagories that the legitametely fit into. I know alot of this has come from past experience with people classifying pumpers as tankers and vice versa just to give them and edge on the truck they are needing. But it could be worse, I could be in the situation I was in prior to AFG helping the many departments that need it.
    Last edited by Limeforever; 06-02-2010 at 11:44 AM.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    JAMAICA IOWA U.S.A.
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Yes Fyrdough posted it but was told from his post not to put it as "other"
    http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115292 (2010 App Vehicle Inventory Questions Answered)

    Reason for this post was one to get answers and two have them all under one posting as a reference.

    I just can't see how we are not getting out of computer scoring even with a serious firefighter injury.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    sdff1520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Hmmm, that seems odd to require 300 gallon tanks size to call it a brush truck. if they are using NWCG Resource Typing standards. A type 6 wildland engine has a tank requirement of 150-400 gallons of water last time I checked.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    It's a misprint on the brush side saying minimum 300gal tank, 150gal is the minimum for NFPA 1906 on the tank size. 300gal is all that's required on a Class A pumper still so that's why Lime's truck was considering one.

    Just like the misprint on saying not to include "other" vehicles in the inventory listing.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    ... Just like the misprint on saying not to include "other" vehicles in the inventory listing.
    That's a misprint? I just followed instructions and didn't include those vehicles.

    The one we had trouble with was with the "open cab" definition. According to the PG, ours wasn't open, but 2 of our regional reps said it was... so I checked the box.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    Nope, all vehicles had to be reported. If you had anything other than 0 under Other in Dept Char II then it forced you to list them. Only transport ambulances as an FD applicant were left out of that Vehicle Inventory page.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Co59Bob View Post
    That's a misprint? I just followed instructions and didn't include those vehicles.

    The one we had trouble with was with the "open cab" definition. According to the PG, ours wasn't open, but 2 of our regional reps said it was... so I checked the box.
    Ok... What exactly is considered "open cab"

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    Ok... What exactly is considered "open cab"

    This would be one below, but suffcie to say" no roof overhead, not a 3-sided cab as in open to the rear.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    Anything that doesn't have doors, walls, and a roof anywhere people sit while responding. All the old Fords with bench seats, etc.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,956

    Default

    Kurt, that is what I always considered open cab, but I have been told by people who of course are just expressing opinion that jump seats open to the rear (but under roof) are
    open cab.

    What about a 2 1/2 ton M series truck, that was built with soft roof, that had a roof modified
    on there later?

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    Anything that doesn't have doors, walls, and a roof anywhere people sit while responding. All the old Fords with bench seats, etc.
    Hhmmh, learn something new everyday. I stand corrected Brian and as backed up by the head honcho himself at AFG. When did they change that ruling it used to say only no roof?
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ktb9780 View Post
    Hhmmh, learn something new everyday. I stand corrected Brian and as backed up by the head honcho himself at AFG. When did they change that ruling it used to say only no roof?
    In 2006 there was a footnote that stated:

    We consider “open-cab” to be any vehicle without a roof or no sides above the door. A three-sided cab (one that has a roof and sides from floor to roof but with an open jump seat area) is NOT considered an “open-cab.”
    Starting in 2007, this was eliminated. Most likely to bring it in-line with NFPA 1901's definition of a "Fully Enclosed Personnel Area" which the AFG definition contradicted.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onebugle View Post
    In 2006 there was a footnote that stated:



    Starting in 2007, this was eliminated. Most likely to bring it in-line with NFPA 1901's definition of a "Fully Enclosed Personnel Area" which the AFG definition contradicted.
    I knew it had said that at one time. Thanks onebugle.Old dog had to learn a new trick today!LOL!
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default

    This was from the "help" link on item #10 in the Vehicle Details page for the 2010 app:

    "An open cab is a vehicle with no top or sides above the door. A three sided cab has a top and sides from the chassis to roof level, but open jump seat entry area. A three sided cab is NOT an open cab"

    This is why I called our Regional... but they said what Brian did, that they consider it open if it doesn't have any doors -- which ours doesn't.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Tim1118's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    126

    Default

    It seems as though there were a number of inconsistencies in the application. I ran into the brush truck issue, the vehicle inventory lists, as well as the canopy cab issue. Several calls to the help desk resulted in several different answers. Hopefully they will realize that there were problems that weren't clearly dealt with, and cut us all a little slack. I did make it a point to clarify in the narrative any inconsistencies... is that what some of you did as well?

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    271

    Default Open Cab Issue

    So let's say that a department followed the guidelines included in the "help" function on the application website and did NOT check the "open cab" option because the truck is a canopy cab....How much will this negatively affect the applications score? Is it likely to bump the application from peer review?

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Tim1118's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    126

    Default

    I'm not an expert at this, but I wouldn't think it would completely bump your application from peer review. According to the program guidance:

    Applicants seeking to replace unsafe vehicles (i.e., open cab engines or converted tankers) will receive higher consideration than applicants seeking to replace vehicles that have these safety features.
    To me, that says all department can apply for a new vehicle, but those replacing a canopy cab truck, or a vehicle that was converted for fire use, will have a higher priority. So, you just might not score as high as a department that indicated that they were replacing an open-cab truck. If it were me, I would probably call the AFG help desk (866) 274-0960 and become the squeaky wheel. I don't know if it can be changed, but I would surely try. Did you mention it in your narrative as well?
    Last edited by Tim1118; 06-15-2010 at 05:50 PM.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davepa View Post
    So let's say that a department followed the guidelines included in the "help" function on the application website and did NOT check the "open cab" option because the truck is a canopy cab....How much will this negatively affect the applications score? Is it likely to bump the application from peer review?
    I doubt it would bump it out but in a close race it might be the " by a nose" that wins! I got a few out there with the same problem, as I was following what the help tab stated.
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Monroe, MI
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Somehow I'm getting the feeling that 2010 is starting off on a bad (if not a very sore) foot. It will be interesting to see how this year plays out. I wonder if they are still having any "software issues".

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    JAMAICA IOWA U.S.A.
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rands1 View Post
    Somehow I'm getting the feeling that 2010 is starting off on a bad (if not a very sore) foot. It will be interesting to see how this year plays out. I wonder if they are still having any "software issues".
    I still have not heard anything on my close-out of our 2008 grant. I had everything submitted by the deadline.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    JAMAICA IOWA U.S.A.
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim1118 View Post
    It seems as though there were a number of inconsistencies in the application. I ran into the brush truck issue, the vehicle inventory lists, as well as the canopy cab issue. Several calls to the help desk resulted in several different answers. Hopefully they will realize that there were problems that weren't clearly dealt with, and cut us all a little slack. I did make it a point to clarify in the narrative any inconsistencies... is that what some of you did as well?
    Well since 75% or so is decided when you you hit the enter button they might never see your narrative

    Good luck if they do.

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Morgan City, LA.
    Posts
    129

    Default

    I called on Monday the 14th and was told from the "help desk" that there still was software problems dealing with closeouts.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Cleveland Fire Dept., Fire exam, July 31st, 2010
    By dmfireschool in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 709
    Last Post: 08-20-2013, 10:16 PM
  2. Your Ideal Fleet
    By viperfire1 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 09:37 PM
  3. 2010 san antonio, texas fire exam
    By dmfireschool in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 07:27 AM
  4. SCBA Replacement for 2010 AFG
    By davepa in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-20-2010, 06:21 PM
  5. 2010 afg
    By MoneyMan29 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-01-2010, 08:23 AM

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