Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Open Cab Truck usage

  1. #41
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Cool Buying

    If you're buying, please make mine a Yingling Lager draft in an ice cold mug. Thankyou.


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default

    CDL is a licensing pattern that has been made mandatory by the government. And as for health card, acquiring a CDL requires you to furnish your medical records and certification.
    __________
    cdl lawyers

  3. #43
    Forum Member FFWALT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    357

    Default

    After reading through this thread I just want to throw something out there. Enclosed cabs are safer than canopy cabs, no argument. The four canopy cabs I have rode/operated are a '72 CF Mack (retired), '80 Sutphen ladder (replaced), 83' Sutphen (reserve scheduled to be replaced) and '89 Ford (reserve). These apparatus all had/have steel canopy's and I'm basing this reply on that information.

    Everyone is debating the health and welfare of the 3 seated and BELTED personnel in the back. If this style of cab is a danger to the 3 personnel under the canopy in a rollover wouldn't the 2-3 personnel in the front of the cab also be at the same risk? (I am only considering a rollover incident, no frontal impact.) The argument could be made that the personnel in the back may be better off because of more open area between the seat and apparatus body compared to the open area in the cab of the apparatus.

    Just wanted to throw this thought out there.

    Stay safe and please keep the apparatus shiny side up so this remains a theoretical discussion.

    Thanks,
    Walt
    Train like you want to fight.
    www.kvfd.net

  4. #44
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    252

    Default Open Cab Mack CF

    We just took delivery of our refurbished Mack CF Aerialscope with a open canopy cab, if all firefighters wear there seat belts there should not be any problems !
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Marble Rock, Iowa
    Posts
    214

    Default

    I see most of you guys are talking about custom cabs with a canopy. What are your thoughts on this truck: fiberglass canopy, no ROPS, lap belts only?

    Name:  IMG-20121031-00080.jpg
Views: 434
Size:  37.7 KB

    Not the best picture, but you can see what I'm talking about.

  6. #46
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Simple answer....just don't be involved in a roll over.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #47
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFWALT View Post
    After reading through this thread I just want to throw something out there. Enclosed cabs are safer than canopy cabs, no argument. The four canopy cabs I have rode/operated are a '72 CF Mack (retired), '80 Sutphen ladder (replaced), 83' Sutphen (reserve scheduled to be replaced) and '89 Ford (reserve). These apparatus all had/have steel canopy's and I'm basing this reply on that information.

    Everyone is debating the health and welfare of the 3 seated and BELTED personnel in the back. If this style of cab is a danger to the 3 personnel under the canopy in a rollover wouldn't the 2-3 personnel in the front of the cab also be at the same risk? (I am only considering a rollover incident, no frontal impact.) The argument could be made that the personnel in the back may be better off because of more open area between the seat and apparatus body compared to the open area in the cab of the apparatus.

    Just wanted to throw this thought out there.

    Stay safe and please keep the apparatus shiny side up so this remains a theoretical discussion.

    Thanks,
    Walt
    None of those trucks were designed with any rollover protection. Lap belts will barely keep you in the truck. In trucks that old, I wouldn't give anyone good odds in a rollover. And with canopy cabs, you're also exposed to high decibels and weather.

  8. #48
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodbridge View Post
    We just took delivery of our refurbished Mack CF Aerialscope with a open canopy cab, if all firefighters wear there seat belts there should not be any problems !
    IF they wear their seatbelts.

    As for the truck, there was no point in a refurb if they weren't going to enclose the cab.

  9. #49
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FF715MRFD View Post
    I see most of you guys are talking about custom cabs with a canopy. What are your thoughts on this truck: fiberglass canopy, no ROPS, lap belts only?

    Attachment 23035

    Not the best picture, but you can see what I'm talking about.
    Drive slow.

  10. #50
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    IF they wear their seatbelts.

    As for the truck, there was no point in a refurb if they weren't going to enclose the cab.
    And a fully enclosed cab is little more than a paint shaker filled with bodies if seatbelts aren't worn.

    We are responsible for our own safety and your comment about seatbelts is just as valid no matter what the cab style. Hence it is a moot point in cab design safety.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #51
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    None of those trucks were designed with any rollover protection. Lap belts will barely keep you in the truck. In trucks that old, I wouldn't give anyone good odds in a rollover. And with canopy cabs, you're also exposed to high decibels and weather.
    Why are you exposed to high decibels? Don't your sirens and horns point foward? Do you have sirens behind the cab? We had open cab Macks for decades....never had a sound issue from the horns and/or sirens.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #52
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    252

    Default

    The cab on the Mack CF Scope could not be enclosed, there is not room between the boom and the cab to add four doors. The truck was rebuilt to upgrade the aerial with all new controls,pistons, hoses, new motor,auto trans, axles, lighting, body work, paint, new aluminum diamond plate steps, & half doors.If we had 1.2 million dollars we would have purchased a new 2013 Aerialscope with a 4-door cab !!

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Why are you exposed to high decibels? Don't your sirens and horns point foward? Do you have sirens behind the cab? We had open cab Macks for decades....never had a sound issue from the horns and/or sirens.
    Open cab Macks had little or no insulation from engine noise. And if you are running with other apparatus behind you, you exposed to the noise from their sirens. As for the sirens pointing forward, you still get noise from the sirens and horns, remember, a lot of those trucks had them mounted on the roof. I guarantee anyone who took lots of runs on open cab trucks has SOME hearing loss.

  14. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And a fully enclosed cab is little more than a paint shaker filled with bodies if seatbelts aren't worn.

    We are responsible for our own safety and your comment about seatbelts is just as valid no matter what the cab style. Hence it is a moot point in cab design safety.
    A modern Pierce or other truck has a LOT more padding on the interior than older trucks, and they are less likely to have hand tools in them. Not to mention Pierces' at least have built in roll over protection. Old cabs would just be crushed. Yes seatbelts give a clear advantage and should be worn, but cab design is NOT a moot point. You can install 5 point harness' in a 80's truck but it won't do any good when the cab roof gets crushed down on you in a rollover. It's the total package that counts.

  15. #55
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Open cab Macks had little or no insulation from engine noise. And if you are running with other apparatus behind you, you exposed to the noise from their sirens. As for the sirens pointing forward, you still get noise from the sirens and horns, remember, a lot of those trucks had them mounted on the roof. I guarantee anyone who took lots of runs on open cab trucks has SOME hearing loss.
    My career FD offered hearing protection for EVERY riding position for well over 20 years. Further if we are not capable of making the decision that noise is possibly causing hearing damage, and getting our own pair of ear muffs or ear plugs, then we quite possibly deserve what we get.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  16. #56
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    A modern Pierce or other truck has a LOT more padding on the interior than older trucks, and they are less likely to have hand tools in them. Not to mention Pierces' at least have built in roll over protection. Old cabs would just be crushed. Yes seatbelts give a clear advantage and should be worn, but cab design is NOT a moot point. You can install 5 point harness' in a 80's truck but it won't do any good when the cab roof gets crushed down on you in a rollover. It's the total package that counts.
    Seriously if you believe padding in the cab of a fire engine will offer any protection at all in a roll over you live in fantasy land. As for your ascertation that fewer tools are mounted in the cab today my trip to the Fire rescue International show in Chicago last weekend would prove you so very wrong. At least 1/3 of the vehicles I looked at had tools mounted inside the cab. Everything from flashlights, TICs, axes, to sets of irons, and more. These tools are all mounted in approved brackets so they won't become projectiles in the cab, but that doesn't stop you from being tossed into them in a roll over or a hard collision.

    I don't want to break your Pierce Kool-Aid drinking heart but Pierce didn't invent fire apparatus roll over protection and aren't the only company offering it either. But further, please find me PROOF of all these older cabbed custom pumpers with crushed roofs from roll overs. I would believe 100% that commercial cabs would be crushed because they are not designed with that protection built in.

    Seatbelts MUST be worn to insure that any inherent safety features, such as roll over protection and airbags, do their job properly. I don't give a damn how well the inside of that cab is padded if you aren't belted in and experience a 55 mph collision or rollover you will be beaten badly and perhaps killed if you fly around unrestrained inside the cab. Further your insistence that the use of seatbelts isn't as critical an element as cab design in passenger safety during a rollover incident makes me question your logic at all on this topic.

    With your the sky is falling attitude I am surprised we aren't reading of thousands of firefighters being killed each year because they dare to use the apparatus that they have instead of marching in to the village hall of Hooterville, population 250, and demandng a half million dollar enclosed cab pumper. My point? YES, enclosed cab fire apparatus are safer, but that does not make an older, safely operated, canopy cab pumper (Which by the way is the proper name for the type of rig you are talking about. An open cab pumper has no roof at all over the entire passenger area.) an automatic death trap.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  17. #57
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Seriously if you believe padding in the cab of a fire engine will offer any protection at all in a roll over you live in fantasy land. As for your ascertation that fewer tools are mounted in the cab today my trip to the Fire rescue International show in Chicago last weekend would prove you so very wrong. At least 1/3 of the vehicles I looked at had tools mounted inside the cab. Everything from flashlights, TICs, axes, to sets of irons, and more. These tools are all mounted in approved brackets so they won't become projectiles in the cab, but that doesn't stop you from being tossed into them in a roll over or a hard collision.

    I don't want to break your Pierce Kool-Aid drinking heart but Pierce didn't invent fire apparatus roll over protection and aren't the only company offering it either. But further, please find me PROOF of all these older cabbed custom pumpers with crushed roofs from roll overs. I would believe 100% that commercial cabs would be crushed because they are not designed with that protection built in.

    Seatbelts MUST be worn to insure that any inherent safety features, such as roll over protection and airbags, do their job properly. I don't give a damn how well the inside of that cab is padded if you aren't belted in and experience a 55 mph collision or rollover you will be beaten badly and perhaps killed if you fly around unrestrained inside the cab. Further your insistence that the use of seatbelts isn't as critical an element as cab design in passenger safety during a rollover incident makes me question your logic at all on this topic.

    With your the sky is falling attitude I am surprised we aren't reading of thousands of firefighters being killed each year because they dare to use the apparatus that they have instead of marching in to the village hall of Hooterville, population 250, and demandng a half million dollar enclosed cab pumper. My point? YES, enclosed cab fire apparatus are safer, but that does not make an older, safely operated, canopy cab pumper (Which by the way is the proper name for the type of rig you are talking about. An open cab pumper has no roof at all over the entire passenger area.) an automatic death trap.
    That time of the month????

  18. #58
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    That time of the month????
    Funny that you chose to be a smart azz and not comment on how I decimated your ridiculous comments. Especially about seatbelts. Or calling canopy cab fire apparatus open cabs.

    Although I suppose when you can't debate from a basis of knowledge being a smart azz is all you have left.

    Have a nice day!
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  19. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber TLFD40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    148

    Default

    So, is it against NFPA to ride in the open cab section of an apparatus?? FASNY (Fireman's Association of NY) says yes as long as seatbelts are worn it's a go........... That's what our Chief said........
    BE ALERT AND STAY ALIVE
    ASST CHIEF
    TLVFD, NY

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Truck usage question
    By mcdonl in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 07:01 PM
  2. SCBA usage
    By HM8teamleader in forum Hazardous Materials General Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 07:33 PM
  3. Training/Usage
    By emsff32515 in forum Underwater Rescue and Recovery
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 08:28 PM
  4. Oxygen Usage?
    By HeroOfTheDay in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-15-2005, 09:35 PM
  5. laptop usage on truck
    By kjohn23 in forum Computers, the 'Net & Us
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-31-2004, 09:04 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