Open Cab Truck usage

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-14-2012, 02:38 AM
volfireman034

1 Attachment(s)

We have a 84' Pierce telesquit with a Ford chassis with rear extended steel cab. We don't always have the firefighters to run anyone in the back 2 seat but we feel very comfortable doing so. Officer checks seatbelts before we leave station. Plus in out case crushing is not a issue with a heavy telesquirt ladder over you head. lol
08-15-2012, 02:43 PM
LaFireEducator

I'm probably more of a safeti Nazi than anyone, and I don't see the need to stop transporting 5 personnel via an open canopy engine if the need to transport those folks still exists.
08-17-2012, 11:32 PM
johnsb

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

I'm probably more of a safeti Nazi than anyone, and I don't see the need to stop transporting 5 personnel via an open canopy engine if the need to transport those folks still exists.

Well they're not going in anyway, so no need to go fast.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
08-17-2012, 11:45 PM
johnsb

Another factor that is being overlooked is the potential for hearing loss due to repeated exposure to sirens, air horns, and engine noise. Not to mention exposure to the elements. The "Safety cab" was invented back in the 30's, wonder why? The Chief should be the one to tell the Aldermen that if you don't want to bring the fleet up to standards, fine, but no one will be riding in the back which will delay the arrival of manpower. So the delay in getting personnel to the scene will be on them. And BTW, what kind of seatbelts are in the back? If they are just lap belts, they don't meet ANY standards. I also doubt that any of the canopy cab trucks have any subtantial roll over protection. there's an entire back wall missing. Not to mention hose, couplings, ladders, nozzles, etc. that can fly foward into the open cab in the event of a crash. Seatbelts aren't going to stop that. I just can't see any reason for putting replacement of these trucks off. Then again, I can't see any reason for Aldermen or any other non-firefighting people to be making these decisions in the first place.
08-20-2012, 02:46 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsb

Another factor that is being overlooked is the potential for hearing loss due to repeated exposure to sirens, air horns, and engine noise. Not to mention exposure to the elements. The "Safety cab" was invented back in the 30's, wonder why? The Chief should be the one to tell the Aldermen that if you don't want to bring the fleet up to standards, fine, but no one will be riding in the back which will delay the arrival of manpower. So the delay in getting personnel to the scene will be on them. And BTW, what kind of seatbelts are in the back? If they are just lap belts, they don't meet ANY standards. I also doubt that any of the canopy cab trucks have any subtantial roll over protection. there's an entire back wall missing. Not to mention hose, couplings, ladders, nozzles, etc. that can fly foward into the open cab in the event of a crash. Seatbelts aren't going to stop that. I just can't see any reason for putting replacement of these trucks off. Then again, I can't see any reason for Aldermen or any other non-firefighting people to be making these decisions in the first place.

Johnsb,

As a former chief, I can tell you that you are living in fantasy land if you believe going into your city fathers and saying this engine, because of that canopy cab, must be replaced immediately due to safety reasons will have them telling you to replace it. The first thing they will want to know is does it work otherwise? Maybe even did it pass annual DOT inspection and pump test. If it did they will be hard pressed to go along with your wishes to replace it. Heck, I am on an FD with a 20 year old front line engine that the fire board still refers to as the "New engine." The aldermen, or fireboards, or village or town trustees make the decisions on when they will release the money, hence they make the decisions on when those rigs are replaced. It really is that simple.

My bet is most rural fire boards or town boards would say don't let anyone ride in back then. Now what? Are you going to have 5 or 10 POV's cluttering up the scene? 2 guys on that first engine, now that should really increase fireground efficiency.

I rode on canopy cab apparatus for probably 25 of my 35 years in the fire service, split the other 10 years between tailboard and enclosed cabs. I never was involved in an incident where anyone was injured while riding in a jump seat under a canopy cab. Not once, and I never heard of anyone in my area ever being injured riding in a canopy cab equipped rig. The departments I was on had rules that said when running to calls, hot or not, you must be fully bunkered out, including helmet, one even required eye protection, and hearing protection was available. Obviously seat belts were mandatory.

Am I disagreeing with you that a custom cab pumper with a fully enclosed cab is safer than a canopy cab? Absolutely not. But the world isn't Candy Land and all the best wishes in the world will not make the canopy cab pumpers in service today go away for probably at least another 20 years or so.
08-20-2012, 06:49 PM
FWDbuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by fyredup

johnsb,

as a former chief, i can tell you that you are living in fantasy land if you believe going into your city fathers and saying this engine, because of that canopy cab, must be replaced immediately due to safety reasons will have them telling you to replace it. The first thing they will want to know is does it work otherwise? Maybe even did it pass annual dot inspection and pump test. If it did they will be hard pressed to go along with your wishes to replace it. Heck, i am on an fd with a 20 year old front line engine that the fire board still refers to as the "new engine." the aldermen, or fireboards, or village or town trustees make the decisions on when they will release the money, hence they make the decisions on when those rigs are replaced. It really is that simple.

My bet is most rural fire boards or town boards would say don't let anyone ride in back then. Now what? Are you going to have 5 or 10 pov's cluttering up the scene? 2 guys on that first engine, now that should really increase fireground efficiency.

I rode on canopy cab apparatus for probably 25 of my 35 years in the fire service, split the other 10 years between tailboard and enclosed cabs. I never was involved in an incident where anyone was injured while riding in a jump seat under a canopy cab. Not once, and i never heard of anyone in my area ever being injured riding in a canopy cab equipped rig. The departments i was on had rules that said when running to calls, hot or not, you must be fully bunkered out, including helmet, one even required eye protection, and hearing protection was available. Obviously seat belts were mandatory.

Am i disagreeing with you that a custom cab pumper with a fully enclosed cab is safer than a canopy cab? Absolutely not. But the world isn't candy land and all the best wishes in the world will not make the canopy cab pumpers in service today go away for probably at least another 20 years or so.

.............this
08-20-2012, 09:25 PM
BoxAlarm187

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Johnsb,

As a former chief, I can tell you that you are living in fantasy land if you believe going into your city fathers and saying this engine, because of that canopy cab, must be replaced immediately due to safety reasons will have them telling you to replace it. The first thing they will want to know is does it work otherwise? Maybe even did it pass annual DOT inspection and pump test. If it did they will be hard pressed to go along with your wishes to replace it. Heck, I am on an FD with a 20 year old front line engine that the fire board still refers to as the "New engine." The aldermen, or fireboards, or village or town trustees make the decisions on when they will release the money, hence they make the decisions on when those rigs are replaced. It really is that simple.

As a fire chief in a rural county who's only national chains are a couple of fast food joints (hence, relying mostly on a residential tax base, and not a commercial tax base), I completely disagree with your generalization about apparatus replacement cycles and safety. Through continuous, open dialogue with our elected officials, we've had a county-funded apparatus replacement program since 1981, with one heavy apparatus purchased every year. We're actually not an anomaly, this is very common in our area. Even in our county, which us 78% agricultural with a population of less than 30,000; we haven't had a canopy cab engine in nearly a decade.

Quote:

Am I disagreeing with you that a custom cab pumper with a fully enclosed cab is safer than a canopy cab? Absolutely not. But the world isn't Candy Land and all the best wishes in the world will not make the canopy cab pumpers in service today go away for probably at least another 20 years or so.

I agree that in some departments, canopy cabs will be around for years to come. But if an educated, articulate fire chief can successfully make the argument that replacing his canopy cab fire engine with a new fire engine will provide secondary and tertiary benefits (enclosed cabs with higher strength, ABS, ESC, airbags, climate control, etc), then he and his members will benefit from his justifications.

While I'm not trying to come across as argumentative, I simply don't think that advocating that there's NO chance getting replacement vehicle funding as long as the rest of the rig passes DOT and pump tests is fair either. Let's empower and educate our forum members, not demoralize them.
08-20-2012, 11:21 PM
johnsb

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187

As a fire chief in a rural county who's only national chains are a couple of fast food joints (hence, relying mostly on a residential tax base, and not a commercial tax base), I completely disagree with your generalization about apparatus replacement cycles and safety. Through continuous, open dialogue with our elected officials, we've had a county-funded apparatus replacement program since 1981, with one heavy apparatus purchased every year. We're actually not an anomaly, this is very common in our area. Even in our county, which us 78% agricultural with a population of less than 30,000; we haven't had a canopy cab engine in nearly a decade.

I agree that in some departments, canopy cabs will be around for years to come. But if an educated, articulate fire chief can successfully make the argument that replacing his canopy cab fire engine with a new fire engine will provide secondary and tertiary benefits (enclosed cabs with higher strength, ABS, ESC, airbags, climate control, etc), then he and his members will benefit from his justifications.

While I'm not trying to come across as argumentative, I simply don't think that advocating that there's NO chance getting replacement vehicle funding as long as the rest of the rig passes DOT and pump tests is fair either. Let's empower and educate our forum members, not demoralize them.

Well said.

Not to mention there's also the option of refurbishing the older trucks. If I had to put up with Aldermen or trustees that didn't know a darn thing about firefighting call the shots on when equipment was purchased, I'd walk. Luckily in my POC dept., the trustees have faith in the Chief and firefighters. We present the facts and figures, and they give the okay. As long as it's fiscally sound, they leave the details up to us, within the budget of course. While not every dept. is as blessed as my dept. is, there still should be a goal to replace older trucks that don't meet current standards. It costs very little to plan for that.

And BTW, helmets shouldn't be worn in the apparatus as they're more likely to cause injury in a crash.
08-21-2012, 02:00 AM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187

As a fire chief in a rural county who's only national chains are a couple of fast food joints (hence, relying mostly on a residential tax base, and not a commercial tax base), I completely disagree with your generalization about apparatus replacement cycles and safety. Through continuous, open dialogue with our elected officials, we've had a county-funded apparatus replacement program since 1981, with one heavy apparatus purchased every year. We're actually not an anomaly, this is very common in our area. Even in our county, which us 78% agricultural with a population of less than 30,000; we haven't had a canopy cab engine in nearly a decade.

This whole paragraph mademe laugh so hard I about ****ed myself. A SMALL RURAL COUNTY with a population of 30,000...try 2 small rural VILLAGES, one with a population of 717, and the other with a population of around 1100. National chains? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are so freaking clueless of how the real SMALL rural fire service works that I pity you.

You can disagree with me all you want, you are a county based fire department, neither of the 2 I listed have more than their own communities they protect to support them. Fortunately, neither of them have canopy cab apparatus anymore but your illusion that somehow these small rural communities are going to be able to pull between a quarter of a million to $400K out of mid air to be able to replace apparatus simply because they have a canopy cab is ludicrous. These departments have replacement schedules, but that doesn't mean they can speed up replacement of rigs because a new standard appears and what they have, while prefectly servicable, doesn't meet the standard.

Come on and try your "continuous, open dialogue" with the farmers we have up here, Or with the hard line Republicans who don't want to spend anything. You can justify all you want, if they dont want to open up their pocket books the money isn't coming and it really is that simple.

I agree that in some departments, canopy cabs will be around for years to come. But if an educated, articulate fire chief can successfully make the argument that replacing his canopy cab fire engine with a new fire engine will provide secondary and tertiary benefits (enclosed cabs with higher strength, ABS, ESC, airbags, climate control, etc), then he and his members will benefit from his justifications.

Yeah, and if the FD is on a 20 year replacement cycle good luck changing that unless the rig is in such disrepair that it will nolonger function. Money is the motivator, and that is just how it is. You may not like it, or even believe me, but just like I am not there, YOU are not here.

I am not denying the benefits of an enclosed cab, I am just debating your delusional sense that every small rural department has your funding base.

While I'm not trying to come across as argumentative, I simply don't think that advocating that there's NO chance getting replacement vehicle funding as long as the rest of the rig passes DOT and pump tests is fair either. Let's empower and educate our forum members, not demoralize them.

You are argumentive and unrealistic if you expect me to believe a COUNTY based FD with a population base of 30,000 can tell me about funding in 2 SMALL RURAL VILLAGES with populations of 717 and around 1100. You choose to believe that reasoning and facts will get everyone what they want. I disagree, sometimes that works and other times it doesn't. It simply boils down to money, if it is there then maybe you get what you wanty, if it isn't, you don't, nomatter what your argment for what you want it. That is reality. Seriously, look at places like Detroit and some other big cities in financial trouble. They run rigs that are rusting away, that are broken more than in service, and dangerous to use, yet they don't get replaced...WHY? Because those places are broke or on the verge of bankruptcy. So do tellme again about how rational explanations will get you new rigs...

How about this, I won't tell you how things work in your corner of the country if you don't presume to tell me how they work in mine.

Have a nice night.
08-21-2012, 02:13 AM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsb

Well said.

I agree, IF we are only talking about HIS particular little corner of the country.

Not to mention there's also the option of refurbishing the older trucks. Ever priced refurbing a 1974 Mack CF? I did, it would have cost us over $100K. Dude if we would have had $100k we would have looked for a much newer used engine. If I had to put up with Aldermen or trustees that didn't know a darn thing about firefighting call the shots on when equipment was purchased, I'd walk. They don't call the shots on equipment purchased and if that is what you think I said practice your reading comprehension. THEY control the money, they decide when to release it to be spent. Most don't care what you want to buy, they care about how and if they can pay for it. If you would walk because of funding problems I question your dedication to the fire department. Luckily in my POC dept., the trustees have faith in the Chief and firefighters. We present the facts and figures, and they give the okay. As long as it's fiscally sound, they leave the details up to us, within the budget of course. Duh,like I said above. While not every dept. is as blessed as my dept. is, there still should be a goal to replace older trucks that don't meet current standards. It costs very little to plan for that. Who said that wasn't the plan?Both you and BoxAlarm187 made it sound like those FDs should demand their canopy cabs be replaced right now and somehow mystically magically that would happen. Ridiculous. Do tell how it costs very little. The price tag of a commercial chassis pumper goes from $250K and up and custom cabs generally are in the $350K and up range. Unless your FD has planned ahead and put money aside for between 10 and 20 years where is this money going to come from? Fantasy Land?

And BTW, helmets shouldn't be worn in the apparatus as they're more likely to cause injury in a crash.
Golly John, is the canopy in or out of the apparatus? Because all of you seem to believe it is outside and completely unprotected from the world and all of it's evil.

Have a nice day.
08-21-2012, 03:35 PM
BoxAlarm187

Fyred, I'm glad that I was able to provide you a laugh for the day. :cool:

I find it interesting that you tell Johnsb that my argument would be valid if we were only talking about "my little corner of the country," yet you fail to clarify that your post would never apply to your my little corner of the US either. The overall idea that the local elected officials control monies hasn't been disputed by anyone at all. But for those of us that don't live in sparsley populated villages, do have a good working relationship with our elected officials, and do have overwhelming support from our citizens, it's not always a foregone conclusion that we'll be "stuck with" older, non-compliant vehicles.

As for me not understanding what "truly" rural volunteer fire departments face on a daily basis, I think you'd be surprised to learn of the projects that I've been involved with to assist needy and ill-funded departments thoughout my state. Dirt floors in the bays, anyone?

Neither John or I said that the FC should "demand" the replacement of the canopy cab rig, rather, it was one tool in the education of the elected officials as to the benefit of the replacement of the vehicle. We're both aware that they can't simply produce money, but if we're not being a voice for our members, their interests, and their safety, we're not doing our jobs as fire chiefs (I use the term "we" collectively).

Completely OT: Why do your rebuttals generally drip with sarcasm and insults?
08-21-2012, 04:15 PM
johnsb

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187

Fyred, I'm glad that I was able to provide you a laugh for the day. :cool:

I find it interesting that you tell Johnsb that my argument would be valid if we were only talking about "my little corner of the country," yet you fail to clarify that your post would never apply to your my little corner of the US either. The overall idea that the local elected officials control monies hasn't been disputed by anyone at all. But for those of us that don't live in sparsley populated villages, do have a good working relationship with our elected officials, and do have overwhelming support from our citizens, it's not always a foregone conclusion that we'll be "stuck with" older, non-compliant vehicles.

As for me not understanding what "truly" rural volunteer fire departments face on a daily basis, I think you'd be surprised to learn of the projects that I've been involved with to assist needy and ill-funded departments thoughout my state. Dirt floors in the bays, anyone?

Neither John or I said that the FC should "demand" the replacement of the canopy cab rig, rather, it was one tool in the education of the elected officials as to the benefit of the replacement of the vehicle. We're both aware that they can't simply produce money, but if we're not being a voice for our members, their interests, and their safety, we're not doing our jobs as fire chiefs (I use the term "we" collectively).

Completely OT: Why do your rebuttals generally drip with sarcasm and insults?

Well if FyredUp's FD can't afford to buy a new truck or refurbish their old ones, maybe they can at least afford some Midol. Sheesh!
08-21-2012, 04:26 PM
LaFireEducator

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsb

Well if FyredUp's FD can't afford to buy a new truck or refurbish their old ones, maybe they can at least afford some Midol. Sheesh!

I think Fyred's point is that there is nothing wrong with a canopy cab engine that requires it's replacement simply because it is a canopy cab.

The fact is that unless an appratus is involved in a rollover MVA, there is not a major increase in the risk of injury for the firefighters in the canopy jumpseat vs. firefiighters in an enclosed cab if they are both properly belted.

Yes, a climnate control ride and the ability to communicate with the officer is nice, but neither is, IMO critical enough to justify the purchase of a enclosed cab engine if the truck is still in good working order ahead of possible other needs.

I would have no issues still riding in the open jumpseats today.

In fact, 2 of my VFDs 6 engines are still canopy apparatus.
08-21-2012, 04:37 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187

Fyred, I'm glad that I was able to provide you a laugh for the day. :cool:

It was good, really. My point beingall the explaining in the world, all the justifying in the world, will make no difference if there is NO MONEY to be had. Of course my post referenced my area, I just didn't say that. Truth is it references more areas than yours does. But perspective is everything.

I find it interesting that you tell Johnsb that my argument would be valid if we were only talking about "my little corner of the country," yet you fail to clarify that your post would never apply to your my little corner of the US either. The overall idea that the local elected officials control monies hasn't been disputed by anyone at all. But for those of us that don't live in sparsley populated villages, do have a good working relationship with our elected officials, and do have overwhelming support from our citizens, it's not always a foregone conclusion that we'll be "stuck with" older, non-compliant vehicles.

Nothing is EVER a foregone conclusion, but in today's economy the odds of a smaller rural community replacing a servicable rig solely because it has a canopy cab are virtually nil.

As for me not understanding what "truly" rural volunteer fire departments face on a daily basis, I think you'd be surprised to learn of the projects that I've been involved with to assist needy and ill-funded departments thoughout my state. Dirt floors in the bays, anyone?

Done it for years. My little rural FD with the population of 717 has donated syrplus equipment to neighboring FDs worse off than us. I personally have assisted people writing AFG grants after writing successful grants myself.

Neither John or I said that the FC should "demand" the replacement of the canopy cab rig, rather, it was one tool in the education of the elected officials as to the benefit of the replacement of the vehicle. We're both aware that they can't simply produce money, but if we're not being a voice for our members, their interests, and their safety, we're not doing our jobs as fire chiefs (I use the term "we" collectively).

I don't disagree with informing our political leaders of changes in standards and what we would need to be compliant. I am just realistic enough in my situation to know that informing them doesn't automatically open the checkbook.

Completely OT: Why do your rebuttals generally drip with sarcasm and insults?

If they only drip with sarcasm I must be slacking off! I guess it is just part of my charm when told I am wrong about the situation in MY area by someone who has never been here and most likely never will.

I used sarcasm, you were condescending...frankly I prefer sarcasm because it doesn't imply superiority.

As I said in my previous reply to you, don't tell me about my corner of the world and I won't tell you about yours.

Have a nice day!!:D
08-21-2012, 06:56 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsb

Well if FyredUp's FD can't afford to buy a new truck or refurbish their old ones, maybe they can at least afford some Midol. Sheesh!

I guess staying relelvant to the topic was beyond your scope.

Actually, all 3 of my FDs have fully enclosed cabs. My point was there is virtually no way, in today's political and economic climate, in my area that a perfectly sevicable rig will be replaced simply because it has a canopy cab. Our last one on my #1 POC FD went because it had rust issues and didn't pass the vacuum test during its last annual pump test. It was only 38 years old. So, care to tell me how things work in my area again Johnny Boy?

For the record, I never said don't try to make your case for apparatus replacement. I never said an enclosed cab didn't have the potential to be safer, well, if it is a custom cab fire apparatus. I wouldn't agree that a commercial cab is built to the same standards for roll over protection as a custom cab.

Refurbishment of an OLDER rig sometimes just does not make economic sense. You may not like that reality but refurbing a 38 year old rig is foolish.

Now, you suggested Midol for me, I suggest a reality check for youand perhaps an ice cold beverage and a rest in the shade.

Have a nice day!
08-21-2012, 06:57 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

I think Fyred's point is that there is nothing wrong with a canopy cab engine that requires it's replacement simply because it is a canopy cab.

The fact is that unless an appratus is involved in a rollover MVA, there is not a major increase in the risk of injury for the firefighters in the canopy jumpseat vs. firefiighters in an enclosed cab if they are both properly belted.

Yes, a climnate control ride and the ability to communicate with the officer is nice, but neither is, IMO critical enough to justify the purchase of a enclosed cab engine if the truck is still in good working order ahead of possible other needs.

I would have no issues still riding in the open jumpseats today.

In fact, 2 of my VFDs 6 engines are still canopy apparatus.

Damn LA, just when I am about to give up hope on you, you post something logical and well thought out. Nice work.
08-21-2012, 10:24 PM
slackjawedyokel

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Damn LA, just when I am about to give up hope on you, you post something logical and well thought out. Nice work.

Scary - maybe the Mayans are right. And what one guy considers rural/poor would be utopia to another.
08-21-2012, 10:45 PM
FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel

Scary - maybe the Mayans are right. And what one guy considers rural/poor would be utopia to another.

That was exactlymy point. 30,000 here is not small or rural at all.
.
08-21-2012, 11:50 PM
BoxAlarm187

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

That was exactlymy point. 30,000 here is not small or rural at all.
.

Our neighboring county has a population of 300,000, so you can imagine how rural they picture us being.
08-22-2012, 08:24 PM
johnsb

Quote:

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I guess staying relelvant to the topic was beyond your scope.

Actually, all 3 of my FDs have fully enclosed cabs. My point was there is virtually no way, in today's political and economic climate, in my area that a perfectly sevicable rig will be replaced simply because it has a canopy cab. Our last one on my #1 POC FD went because it had rust issues and didn't pass the vacuum test during its last annual pump test. It was only 38 years old. So, care to tell me how things work in my area again Johnny Boy?

For the record, I never said don't try to make your case for apparatus replacement. I never said an enclosed cab didn't have the potential to be safer, well, if it is a custom cab fire apparatus. I wouldn't agree that a commercial cab is built to the same standards for roll over protection as a custom cab.

Refurbishment of an OLDER rig sometimes just does not make economic sense. You may not like that reality but refurbing a 38 year old rig is foolish.

Now, you suggested Midol for me, I suggest a reality check for youand perhaps an ice cold beverage and a rest in the shade.

Have a nice day!

If you are buying, an ice cold Sam Adams would be nice. I just hit you in the azz with the Midol thing because you seemed to have taken my comments personally.

There's different levels of refurb, a good choice for a lot of FD's would be simply to enclose the cab, not necessarily rebuild top to bottom. And I know some places wish they could get a truck new enough to be a canopy cab. Most of my statements were aimed at local politicians.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page